The court clarified that SDMs cannot enforce a specific affidavit format for asset disclosure in execution proceedings, overruling prior mandates that conflicted with CPC provisions.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Execution proceedings - The petitioner challenged an SDM order requiring an affidavit of assets and liabilities. The SDM later modified the order. The court clarifies that the binding format prescribed in prior judgments is no longer valid, allowing SDMs to proceed without insisting on specific formats of affidavits. (Paras 5, 7, 8)

(B) Law of Precedent - Overruling of past decisions and re-evaluation of court mandates are essential when prior judgments conflict with procedural law. The court emphasized adherence to the CPC provisions rather than general mandates created in previous cases. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner objected to an affidavit format demanded by the SDM in execution proceedings arising from a prior judgment, which was later reconsidered in light of newer jurisprudence.

Findings of Court:
The order mandating a specific affidavit format was set aside, confirming the SDM's authority to conduct proceedings without such requirements.

Issues: The main issues were the validity of the specific affidavit format mandated by prior judgment and the authority of the SDM to modify procedural requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the previous mandates concerning affidavit formats in execution proceedings were inconsistent with the CPC provisions and could not be enforced generally.

Result: Petition disposed of.

Table of Content
1. final order disposing of the petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 11)
2. petition challenges sdm order for asset affidavit. (Para 3 , 4)
3. petitioner cites precedent affecting affidavit requirements. (Para 5 , 6)
4. overruling the attorney requirements from prior cases. (Para 7 , 8)
5. sdm directed to avoid insisting on specific affidavit format. (Para 9 , 10)

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)

CM No. 37131/2021(for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

CM(M) 725/2021, CM No. 37130/2021 (for stay) & CM No. 37132/2021 (for call of complete set of records)

3. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 11th October, 2021 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sub Division Kotwali (SDM), whereby the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit with complete details of all his assets and liabilities in the format that was provided to the petitioner.

4. Recovery proceedings were initiated by the SDM against the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 10th August, 2018 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts. Vide the impugned order dated 11th October, 2021, the SDM directed the petitioner, who was represented by his son before the SDM on the said date, to file an affidavit with complete details of all his assets and liabilities in the format provided to the petitioner.

5. Counsel for the petitioner fairly contends that on the next date of hearing on 21st October, 2021, the SDM has himself modified the impugned order by not insisting the petitioner to file his affidavit in the format provided to the petitioner. Accordingly, he does not press the present petition. However, he contends that most of the SDMs in the city are following the judgment of this Court in Santosh Kumar Jha Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner (South), W.P.(C) No.8092/2016 dated 27th March, 2017 whereby this Court, while following its earlier judgment in M/s Bhandari Engineers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Maharia Raj Joint Venture & Ors. (2016) 155 DRJ 212 (Bhandari Engineers I), had prescribed a format of an affidavit which was attached to the said judgment which was to be followed by all SDMs. The format of affidavit prescribed in Bhandari Engineers I supra was modified and made comprehensive by this Court in Bhandari Engineers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Maharia Raj Joint Venture & Ors. 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1969 (Bhandari Engineers IV). Accordingly, he submits that it may be clarified that in light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Delhi Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Himgiri Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3603 (of which I was a part), the format of affidavit attached to Santosh Kumar Jha supra need not be insisted on.

6. Counsel appearing on advance notice on behalf of the respondents fairly does not oppose the aforesaid.

7. The portions of the judgment in Bhandari Engineers IV supra to the extent it prescribed a format of affidavits of assets to be followed in all execution proceedings were overruled by this Court in Delhi Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works supra, wherein it was held as follows:

"48. ......... Thus, for the Court/Commercial Division in Bhandari Engineers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. supra, to exercise powers under Section 151 of the CPC, it was necessary for the Court/Commercial Division to first hold that there was no provision in the CPC or any other law to meet the exigency which had arisen.

49. Not only did the Commercial Division in Bhandari Engineers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. supra not hold so but has itself in the judgment referred to Order XXI Rule 41 of the CPC and rather identified that also as a source of power to do what has been done therein. Order XXI Rule 41 read with Form 16A in Appendix-E of the CPC and Order XLVIII Rule 3 of the CPC are precisely for the same exigency with which the learned Judge in Bhandari Engineers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. supra was concerne

Click Here to Read the rest of this document