Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Chaudhary Rajender Pawar - Appellant
Versus
Geeta Singh & Anr. - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 126 of 2019, 129 of 2019
Decided On : 23-01-2020
Fraud and Forgery - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 6 - The Petitioner initiated proceedings under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 claiming possession of the suit property. The Suit was decreed in favor of the Petitioner. The Trial Court erred in staying the execution proceedings based on the same plea of fraud and forgery that had been rejected in previous proceedings. The Trial Court's order dismissing the Petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was set aside, and the Suit filed by Respondent No.1 was held to be barred under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the principles of res judicata.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner filed a suit for possession against Respondent Nos.1 and 2, claiming to have purchased the property. A compromise was reached, and the suit was decreed as compromised. Petitioner filed an execution petition seeking execution of the compromise decree. Respondent No.1 objected to the execution, alleging fraud and forgery. Multiple proceedings were initiated by Respondent No.1, including appeals to higher courts, all of which were dismissed. Petitioner obtained possession of the property, but Respondent No.1 trespassed and filed a fresh suit for declaration, injunction, and setting aside the compromise decree. The Trial Court stayed the execution proceedings. The Court held that the plea of fraud and forgery had been tested and rejected in previous proceedings, and the Trial Court had no power to stay execution based on the same plea. The Trial Court's order dismissing the Petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was set aside, and the Suit filed by Respondent No.1 was held to be barred under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the principles of res judicata.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court erred in staying the execution proceedings based on the same plea of fraud and forgery that had been rejected in previous proceedings. The judgments and orders in the earlier rounds of litigation would operate as res judicata. The Trial Court's order dismissing the Petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was set aside, and the Suit filed by Respondent No.1 was held to be barred under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the principles of res judicata.
Ratio Decidendi: The plea of fraud and forgery had been tested and rejected in previous proceedings, and the Trial Court had no power to stay execution based on the same plea. The judgments and orders in the earlier rounds of litigation would operate as res judicata. The Trial Court's order dismissing the Petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was set aside, and the Suit filed by Respondent No.1 was held to be barred under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the principles of res judicata.
Result: Both the petitions were allowed, and the Trial Court's order staying the execution proceedings and dismissing the Petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was set aside. The Suit filed by Respondent No.1 was held to be barred under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the principles of res judicata.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. - C.R.P. 126/2019 & CM APPL. 25750/2019 (stay) & C.R.P. 129/2019 & CM APPL. 26032/2019 (stay)
1. None appears for Respondents Nos.3 to 7 in C.R.P. 129/2019 despite service, they are, accordingly, proceeded ex-parte.
2. In C.R.P. 126/2019, Petitioner, impugns order dated 15.03.2019, whereby, the Trial Court has inter alia stayed the execution petition filed by the Petitioner, sine die till the decision of the suit No.325/17, filed by the Respondent No.1, and has restrained the Petitioner from creating any third-party interest in the suit property.
3. In C.R.P. 129/2019, Petitioner, impugns order dated 15.03.2019, whereby, the Trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking dismissal of the Suit for declaration filed by the Respondent No. 1.
4. This case has a very chequered history and throws up certain glaring facts and conduct on the part of the Respondents. This case is a classic example as to how a litigant can abuse the system and deprive the opposite party of the fruits of his success.
5. Petitioner had filed a Suit for possession against Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are husband and wife contending that he had purchased the Suit Property from its earlier owner and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were tenants in the said Property.
6. During pendency of the said suit a compromise was arrived at between the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 on 25.05.2011 and a Compromise Deed was executed.
7. As per the Compromise Deed, Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 agreed to handover the peaceful vacant possession of the suit property, i.e., House No.726 comprising of ground floor and first floor, built up on the area of 100 sq. yards in portion of Khasra No.749 of Revenue Village of Hari Nagar situated in Gali No.13, I - Block in Abadi known as Hari Nagar Extension, Badarpur, New Delhi on or before 30.09.2011 besides paying monthly rental of Rs. 11,000/-.
8. Thereafter an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 was filed in the suit for recording the compromise and passing a decree. The application was supported by an affidavit of the Petitioner and both Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
9. On 07.06.2011, the statements of the Petitioner as well as the Respondent No.2 were recorded by the Court. Based on the statement and the compromise, the Suit was decreed as compromised in terms of the Compromise Deed.
10. Petitioner thereafter on 01.10.2011 filed an execution petition seeking execution of the Compromise Decree.
11. Objection petition was filed by the Respondent No.1 on 23.01.2011, under Order 21 Rule 26 Civil Procedure Code, objecting to the execution of the decree. It was contended that her husband is in the habit of drinking and she was not having cordial relations with her husband and on receipt of summons, she became aware that she had been cheated by the Petitioner in connivance with her husband. She alleged that she had even filed a complaint in the Police Station. She disowned the compromise and contended that her signatures had been obtained on certain blank papers by her husband and he had misused the same to create the Compromise Deed.
12. Respondent also filed an application under Order 23 Rule 3A CPC on similar grounds impugning the Compromise Decree.
13. Objections filed by the Respondent No.1 under Order 21 Rule 26 CPC were dismissed by the Executing Court by order dated 18.05.2013.
14. On the application under Order 23 Rule 3A, on the same date i.e. 18.05.2013, the Executing Court framed issues and set the case down for evidence.
15. Respondent No. 1 thereafter filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being CM (M) 774 of 2013, before the High Court of Delhi, impugning the order dated 18.05.2013, whereby her objections under Order 21 Rule 26 CPC were rejected.
16. Said petition under Article 227 was dismissed on 20.08.2015 in default.
17. In the application under Order 23 Rule 3A, the Executing Court noticed that Respondent No.1 initially appeare
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
