The acceptance of the correctness of a judgment and decree precludes seeking relief in subsequent proceedings, and abusing the legal process by filing successive applications seeking to stall execution proceedings is impermissible.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, impugns the order dated 10.03.2023 passed by ADJ (South), Saket Court, New Delhi (`Trial Court'), in Review Petition No. Misc. DJ 50/2022, titled as Kamal Kishore Khullar v. Sudershan Khanna & Ors., dismissing the review petition filed by the Petitioner seeking setting aside of the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.11.2019, passed by ADJ (South) Saket Court, New Delhi (`Trial Court'), in Civil Suit No. 6882/2016, titled as Sudarshan Khanna & Ors. v. Kamal Kishore Khullar, wherein the suit was partly decreed against the defendant i.e., Petitioner herein.

2. The Petitioner herein was the sole defendant and the Respondents herein was the plaintiff in the civil suit.

2.1. The civil suit was filed by the Respondents initially under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC') for recovery of Rs. 5 lakhs based on a written agreement dated 20.08.2008 executed between the parties.

2.2. The leave to defend application filed by the Petitioner herein was duly allowed vide order dated 15.10.2011, thereafter, the defendant (i.e., the Petitioner) filed his written statement and raised the objection that the plaintiff i.e., the Respondents herein has no locus to file the suit and that the said suit is filed on the basis of forged, fabricated and manipulated document i.e., the loan agreement dated 20.08.2008. Evidence was led by the parties and thereafter, the Trial Court passed a detailed judgment dated 26.11.2019 in favour of the Respondents and against the Petitioner.

2.3. The civil suit was decreed by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 26.11.2019 and the Respondents were held entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of grant of loan till its actual realisation.

3. The Petitioner herein elected not to file any appeal against the said judgment and consequently the said judgment attained finality.

4. The Petitioner herein on 02.12.2020 filed an application (Review Application No. 51/2022) under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, before the Trial Court seeking review of the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2019.

4.1. Since, the review application was filed beyond the period of limitation, Petitioner also filed an application for condoning the delay of 1 year 9 days in filing the review application. The Trial Court vide impugned order dated 10.03.2023 held that it did not find any sufficient cause for condoning the delay and the application was dismissed.

4.2. Consequently, in the application for review filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 and 151 CPC for review of the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2019 also stood dismissed and disposed of being barred by limitation.

5. The Respondents filed an execution petition before the Trial Court for execution of the decree dated 26.11.2019 and the same is numbered as execution proceedings no. 37/2021.

5.1. The Petitioner has made part payments towards the decree and the learned counsel for the Petitioner during the course of the argument was unable to state the exact amount paid, but stated that part payment has been made. However, he admits that an amount in excess of 5.5 lakhs continues to remain due and payable.

5.2. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that in this petition, he is seeking a stay of the execution proceedings as Petitioner is willing to make payments of the remaining decretal amount in instalments. He states that the Petitioner is willing to pay a further amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the Respondents and prays for stay of the execution proceedings.

6. This Court has considered the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the record.

7. The aforesaid facts evidences that the Petitioner herein is relying upon the present proceedings only for securing the repayment schedule in instalments for the payment of the decretal amount. The Petitioner i