IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the execution of a decree for eviction, finding the appellant's objections to be vexatious and without merit, emphasizing the need to discourage frivolous challenges to execution proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

(Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.)

1. This appeal, under Order XXI Rule 58(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) read with Sections 100 and 151 of the CPC, seeks to challenge the impugned order dated 06.05.2023, whereby, the first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant/judgment-debtor against an order dated 16.12.2021 passed in EX No.5061/2016 by JSCC Cum ASCJ Cum GJ, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, dismissing application of the appellant/judgment-debtor.

2. The facts germane in the instant appeal are that the respondents/decree-holders instituted a suit for eviction against the appellant/judgment-debtor herein, which came to be decreed in their favour on 24.04.2017. Respondent No.1 then filed an execution petition in furtherance of the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2017, against the appellant/judgment-debtor. On 24.04.2017, the Executing Court issued warrants for possession and attachment, returnable on 26.05.2017 and on 01.05.2017 a bailiff was appointed with specific instructions that, should the suit premises be found locked, the bailiff was authorized to break open the locks. Additionally, the bailiff was empowered to obtain assistance from the local police to execute the warrants of possession and attachment of moveable properties of the appellant for recovery of the decretal amount, i.e., Rs.77,344/-.

3. On 26.05.2017, the Executing Court duly recorded the submission of respondent No.1/decree-holder affirming that possession of the subject premises had been handed over to her on 09.05.2017.

4. On various occasions before the Courts below, the appellant/judgment-debtor, by way of objections, sought dismissal of the execution petition and requested for detachment of the goods and articles purportedly seized. Additionally, the appellant/judgment-debtor sought criminal action against the respondents/decree-holders and bailiff, alleging misappropriation of articles and abuse of the legal process. These objections were dismissed by the Executing Court, vide order dated 16.12.2021 by which it was observed that the appellant/judgment-debtor habitually made false statements and had removed most of her belongings during the execution of the warrants of possession.

5. It is this order that was challenged before the first Appellate Court and the appeal preferred by the appellant/judgment-debtor was dismissed. Consequently, the appellant/judgment-debtor has preferred the present appeal.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/judgment-debtor avers that the first Appellate Court failed to appreciate the documents placed on record including the recitals of the Local Commissioner’s Report dated 12.07.2018 (LC report) and ignored the fact that the same clearly pointed out the discrepancies in the report of the bailiff. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the said LC report along with video photograph, depicted the actual facts regarding the belongings, furniture and other household goods along with the study materials, certificates etc. of appellant/judgment-debtor’s son which were found in the suit property in a ransacked condition.

7. Learned counsel further contends that the Executing Court has not made any efforts to examine whether attachment by the bailiff was in consonance with the provisions of CPC under Order XXI Rule 43.

8. Learned counsel also submitted that the Executing Court overlooked the fact that the appellant/judgment-debtor had promptly filed an application within seven days of the date of handing over the possession i.e, 09.05.2017, seeking release of the original educational certificates/documents of her son and basic usable items such as clothes and kitchen utensils, which should not have been attached according to the law. It is also submitted that there was an inordinate delay in receiving the report by the bailiff.

9. Learned counsel further submitted that the first Appellate Court and the Executing Court failed to recognize the illegal