Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
Madan Kishore – Appellant
Versus
Sudhir Sewal (Deceased) through LRs. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
1. These two Revision Petitions arising out of the same order passed in a Execution Petition, for involvement of common question of law and facts, are being decided together by this common judgment.
2. For convenience, status of parties is being referred as per their status in the Execution Petition.
3. Petitioner(s) have approached this Court invoking provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) to assail order dated 7.9.2015 passed by Executing Court, i.e. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, in Civil Execution Petition No. 13/10 of 2012, titled as Col. Sudhir Sewal and others Vs. Madan Kishore and others, whereby objections filed on behalf of Judgment Debtor No. 1 as well as Judgment Debtor Nos. 2 and 4, have been dismissed.
4. Execution Petition No. 13/10 of 2012 has been preferred by Decree Holder for execution of judgment dated 27.6.1997 passed by this High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 281 of 1988, titled as Col. Sudhir Sewal and others Vs. Madan Kishore and others, which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 2.9.2008 by dismissing the Civil Appeal No. 7179 of 2001, preferre
The executing court cannot re-evaluate settled issues or entertain objections based on the merits of the original case; it must execute the decree as it stands.
An ex parte decree that is cryptic and non-compliant with procedural requirements cannot be executed; necessary amendments to parties and relief sought must be pursued to validate execution.
The executing court must determine questions arising between parties to the decree without modifying it, and procedural irregularities should not defeat substantive rights.
The court emphasized the limited grounds on which a decree is unexecutable and highlighted that the right of the Decree Holder to obtain relief is determined in accordance with the terms of the decre....
Point of Law : A person, including a stranger, could maintain a petition under Rule 97 of Order XXI and object and get adjudication when he sought to be dispossessed by the decree holder. The express....
The Executing Court's authority is limited to issues directly related to the execution of a decree, and it cannot adjudicate unrelated matters raised by third-party objectors.
(1) Inordinate delay in execution of decree - Pure civil matters take a long time to be decided and it does not end with a decision, as execution of a decree is an entirely new phase in long life of ....
The executing court cannot go behind the decree unless it is a nullity, and re-agitating objections already dismissed in a previous petition would amount to an abuse of process of law.
(1) Failure to present written statement – Court is not supposed to pass a mechanical judgment invoking Rule 10 of Order VIII, CPC merely on the basis of plaint, upon failure of a defendant to file a....
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
