The executing court is bound by the decree's terms and cannot entertain objections that do not pertain to jurisdiction, even if the decree is allegedly erroneous.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails orders dated 11th March, 2022 and 7th May, 2022, passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge ("the learned ASCJ") in Ex. 1203/19 (Mukesh Marwah v. Pratap Ranjan Sahni). In the said proceedings, Mukesh Marwah, Respondent 1 herein was the Decree Holder (DH) and Pratap Ranjan Sahni, Respondent 2 herein was Judgment Debtor 1 (JD-1). The petitioner was Judgment Debtor 2 (JD-2).

2. Ex. 1203/19 sought execution of judgment and decree dated 8th April, 2019 in Suit No. 1583/2016 (Mukesh Marwah v. Pratap Ranjan Sahni & Anr.) in which Respondent 1 was the petitioner, Pratap Ranjan Sahni was Defendant 1 and the petitioner Feroze Ahmed was Defendant 2. Respondent 1 had, in the said suit, sought declaration, a decree of possession in respect of the suit property in his favour and against the defendants (i.e. the petitioner and Respondent 2) and damages. The learned ASCJ decreed the suit in the following terms:

"33. In view of my aforesaid findings, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with the following reliefs :

A. A decree of possession is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in respect of the suit property bearing no. 61-D, DDA MIG Flat, Motia Khan, Paharganj, New Delhi.

B. A decree for recovery of arrears of rent is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants amounting to Rs.71,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no.1 from the date of institution of the suit till realisation.

C. A decree for future damages is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month for use and occupation charges/mesne profits from the date of filing of the suit till the date of delivery of possession by the defendants to the plaintiff. The plaintiff shall pay appropriate court fee on the amount of damages/mesne profits before the preparation of the decree sheet.

D. Cost of the suit."

3. Ex. 1203/19 was filed by Respondent 1 Mukesh Marwah, seeking execution of the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 8th April, 2019.

4. The petitioner filed objections, objecting to the execution of the judgment and decree on the ground that (i) the decree was passed on the last working day of the learned ASCJ, who had kept it reserved, without seeking any clarification from the petitioner, (ii) Respondent 1 was not the owner of the suit premises, (iii) Respondent 1 had failed to prove the documents on which he sought to place reliance, (iv) the witnesses cited by Respondent 1 were planted witnesses, who had neither produced any proof of identification nor did they come from the addresses stated by them, (v) the evidence of the witnesses of Respondent 1, moreover, did not substantiate the case sought to be made out in the plaint, (vi) consequent to passing of the judgment, the files of the suit were misplaced in the office of the petitioner, and could not be traced thereafter, (vii) on going through the judgment, the petitioner noticed that there were "many errors apparent on the face of the record" thereby rendering it a fit case for review, which he intended to file at the earliest, (viii) sans any prayer for declaration of title, a suit could not lie merely for recovery of possession, (ix) documents were filed by Respondent 1 after passing of the decree, and were not exhibited and (x) Respondent 1 had failed to prove the factum of ownership of the suit property beyond all reasonable doubt. Urging that, in the absence of proof of ownership of the suit property by Respondent 1, he would not be entitled to a decree in his favour, the petitioner prayed that his objections be accepted and Ex. 1203/19 be dismissed.

5. The aforesaid objections of the petitioner were taken on record by the learned ASCJ on 7th March, 2020 and Respondent 1 was directed to reply to the objections within 10 days. On 5th February, 2021, Re