Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Ashok & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Khyali Ram & Ors. – Respondents
C.R.P. 20 of 2020
Decided On : 16-05-2023
Fraud - Execution of Decree - Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC - AIR 2012 Ori 44, AIR 2009 P&H 188 - The court allowed the application filed by the Petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, seeking deletion of Respondents No.1 and 3 who are stated to have expired and stating that being issueless, their alleged share goes to the legal heirs of Liaq Ram/Respondent No.2. The revision petition sought quashing of order dated 10.01.2020, passed by the Executing Court in Execution Case No. 95292/2016 titled `Khyali Ram and Others v. Ashok and Others', whereby objections filed by the Petitioners have been dismissed and warrants of possession have been issued against suit property bearing House No. 548, with adjacent courtyard, situated in Village Abadi of Village Khera Kalan, Delhi-110062. The prime contention of the Judgment Debtors is that when suit was filed for permanent injunction, Decree Holders were not in possession of the suit property and the possession was with the Judgment Debtors along with some portion being in possession of an outsider. The Executing Court dismissed the objections and issued warrants of possession finding no merit in the same. The Court concluded that the Decree Holders deserved to be put back in possession as relegating the Decree Holders to filing another suit for recovering possession would lead to multiplicity of litigations and would prejudice the Decree Holders who had already spent much time and expense in getting the fruits of their litigation. The Court found no merit in the contention that the decree was obtained by fraud and is a nullity. The Court also held that the Executing Court was empowered to issue warrants of possession of the suit property while executing a decree of permanent injunction. The revision petition was dismissed and the interim order staying the warrants of possession with respect to the suit property was vacated.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against two Defendants seeking a restraint from interfering with peaceful possession over the suit property. The Trial Court ordered status quo with regard to possession and existing construction on the suit property. The Decree Holders filed Execution Petition after which the Judgment Debtors filed objections claiming that the decree was obtained by playing fraud on the Court and was a nullity. The Judgment Debtors also contended that the Executing Court was not empowered to issue warrants of possession of the suit property while executing a decree of permanent injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found no merit in the contention that the decree was obtained by fraud and is a nullity. The Court also held that the Executing Court was empowered to issue warrants of possession of the suit property while executing a decree of permanent injunction.
Issues: The main issues were whether the decree was obtained by fraud and is a nullity, and whether the Executing Court was empowered to issue warrants of possession of the suit property while executing a decree of permanent injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Decree Holders deserved to be put back in possession as relegating them to filing another suit for recovering possession would lead to multiplicity of litigations and would prejudice the Decree Holders who had already spent much time and expense in getting the fruits of their litigation. The Court also found no merit in the contention that the decree was obtained by fraud and is a nullity. Additionally, the Court held that the Executing Court was empowered to issue warrants of possession of the suit property while executing a decree of permanent injunction.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed and the interim order staying the warrants of possession with respect to the suit property was vacated.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J.
C.M. APPL. 6356/2022
This is an application filed by the Petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, seeking deletion of Respondents No.1 and 3 who are stated to have expired and stating that being issueless, their alleged share goes to the legal heirs of Liaq Ram/Respondent No.2.
Issue notice.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents accepts notice.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Names of Respondents No.1 and 3 are hereby deleted from the array of parties.
Amended memo of parties filed along with the application is taken on record.
Application stands disposed of.
C.R.P. 20/2020 & C.M. APPL. 4004/2020 (for stay)
1. By this revision petition, Petitioners seek quashing of order dated 10.01.2020, passed by the Executing Court in Execution Case No. 95292/2016 titled `Khyali Ram and Others v. Ashok and Others', whereby objections filed by the Petitioners have been dismissed and warrants of possession have been issued against suit property bearing House No. 548, with adjacent courtyard, situated in Village Abadi of Village Khera Kalan, Delhi-110062. Petitioners herein are sons of late Sh. Laxman Singh who was one of the Defendants before the Trial Court while Respondents are legal representatives of the three Plaintiffs before the Trial Court.
2. Facts to the extent necessary can be encapsulated as Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction on 24.04.1986 against two Defendants namely Sh. Bholey Ram and Sh. Laxman Singh, seeking a restraint from interfering with peaceful possession over the suit property. A joint written statement was filed by the Defendants denying possession of Plaintiffs over the suit property as well as correctness of the site plan filed with the plaint. Defendant No. 1/Sh. Bholey Ram gave a statement on 25.04.1988 that he had no concern with the suit property and had been unnecessarily impleaded as a Defendant. In view of this statement, Plaintiffs withdrew their suit against Defendant No. 1 and the suit proceeded against Defendant No. 2.
3. Trial Court, as an interim measure, ordered status quo with regard to possession and existing construction on the suit property and a Local Commissioner was also appointed. According to Defendant No. 2, Local Commissioner reported that possession of the open courtyard was with Defendant No. 2 while the adjacent area was in possession of Defendant No. 1 and some neighbours and this established that Plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit property. No objections were filed by the Plaintiffs against the Local Commissioner's report.
4. Subsequently, Defendant No. 2 stopped appearing in the matter and the Court proceeded ex parte against him vide order dated 11.12.2003 and a decree was passed on 27.08.2004 decreeing the suit for permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs and restraining Defendant No. 2 from interfering in the peaceful possession of the suit property, in any manner. In 2006, the Plaintiffs/Decree Holders filed Execution Petition bearing No.259/2006 which was dismissed on 02.02.2007 with the observation that the Decree Holders failed to give particulars of the date of alleged violation of injunction decree. Thereafter, in 2007, another execution petition bearing No. 595292/2016 was filed by the Plaintiffs/Decree Holders before the Executing Court. Objections were filed by the Petitioners herein who are sons of late Sh. Laxman Singh/Defendant No. 2 in the suit and referred hereinafter as Judgment Debtors. By the impugned order, the Executing Court dismissed the objections, wherein the Judgment Debtors had pleaded that the decree was obtained by playing fraud on the Court and was a nullity. It was also pleaded that Plaintiffs had filed the suit in respect of property, which belonged to the two Defendants and included a portion owned by one Sh. Ram Jeevan. Local Commissioner's report pointed to the fact that the two Defendants were in possession of the property and not the Plaintiffs. Sev
A decree for permanent prohibitory injunction is enforceable by assignees, is not subject to limitation, and the executing court has the authority to restore possession in cases of dispossession.
The court affirmed that a decree holder's rights must be enforced despite repeated technical objections from judgment debtors, underscoring the importance of expeditious justice in civil matters.
Objection to execution of decree – Even if Executing Court cannot go behind decree, it does not mean that it has no duty to find out true effect of that decree.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation of a decree of permanent injunction, its execution by subsequent purchasers, and the significance of a declaratory decree of title.
The executing court has jurisdiction to enforce decrees, including injunctions, and can act against violations by judgment debtors.
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
