Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 535
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Satyen Vaidya, J.
Sunil & others - Petitioners
Versus
Anu & others - Respondents
CMPMO No.292 of 2023
Decided On : 17-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ajay Sipahiya, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kavita kajal, Advocate
The executing court upheld the decree holder's right to execute the decree, emphasizing that objections from judgment debtors regarding executability were insufficient to obstruct execution.
Headnote:
(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Section 96 and Section 47 - Execution proceedings - The executing court upheld the decree holder's right to execute the decree despite objections from judgment debtors regarding the decree's executability and satisfaction - The decree holder's admission regarding the satisfaction of the decree was deemed insufficient to obstruct execution. (Paras 7, 8, 11, 15)
(B) Decree Execution - The decree holder has the option to execute the decree in part or as a whole, and the court emphasized the need for adherence to the decree holder's wishes unless legally barred. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The case involved an execution petition filed by the decree holder to enforce a decree of possession granted in 2011. The petitioners claimed the decree was satisfied and raised objections to execution. The executing court dismissed these objections. (Paras 2-6)
Findings of Court:
The executing court found that the objections raised by the petitioners were not valid, and the decree had attained finality, thus allowing execution. (Paras 8, 15)
Issues: The main issues included whether the decree was executable and if it had been satisfied, as well as the validity of objections raised by the judgment debtors. (Paras 7, 9)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the decree holder's conduct and the finality of the decree justified the execution, and the objections raised were not bona fide, reflecting an attempt to delay the process. (Paras 11, 15)
Result: The petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the petitioners to the decree holder.
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
By way of instant petition challenge has been laid to orders dated 17.04.2019 and 29.03.2023 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Una in Execution Petition No. 475 of 2013.
2. Civil Suit No.78/1987 was filed by Shri Mangat Rai, predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.1 against S/Shri Jagan Nath and Dina Nath, who were predecessors-in-interest of petitioners and respondents No.2 to 5, respectively. The suit was filed for possession of the suit land on the basis of title. The suit land was described by letters ABCD and LMQN being part of land comprised in Khasra Nos.868 and 820 in village Charatgarh, Tehsil and District Una. The suit was dismissed by learned trial Court.
3. An appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by Shri Mangat Rai against the judgment and decree of dismissal passed by learned trial Court. Learned District Judge, Una, vide judgment dated 26.11.2011, passed in Civil Appeal No.109 of 1994 partly allowed the appeal of Shri Mangat Rai and passed a decree of possession by way of removal of super structure as denoted by letters ABD&C in th report of Local Commissioner Ext. PX being part and parcel of land measuring 0-0-60 comprised in Khasra No.820. Judgment passed by learned District Judge Una has attained finality.
4. With the passage of time all the original parties have been succeeded by their successors as noticed above.
5. Respondent No.1 (for short, the Decree Holder) has filed execution petition for execution of aforesaid decree dated 26.11.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Una. The petitioners herein preferred objections to the execution petition of the decree alleging inter alia, that the decree was unexecutable as the same was not passed in favour of the decree holder. Further that the decree, as against judgment debtors No.1 to 4 i.e. the present petitioners and their mother Smt. Bimla Devi (now deceased), stood satisfied on receipt of a sum of Rs.30,000/- by Shri Mangat Rai on 25.05.2012 from the predecessor-in-interest of judgment debtors No.1 to 4 (petitioners herein). It was asserted that the decree holder had made a specific admission to that effect while making a statement dated 20th July, 2018 before the Field Kanungo, who had visited the spot to execute warrant of possession issued in execution of the decree.
6. The decree holder denied any amount having been received by her father-in-law Shri Mangat Rai. The decree holder further averred that the judgment debtors No.1 to 4/objectors had agreed to execute sale deed of decree holder with respect to construction on the suit land along with adjoining land and house, but they refused to do so. The statement made by the decree holder before the Field Kanungo was in expectation of fructification of aforesaid deal between the parties. In nutshell, the decree holder asserted her right to execute the decree.
7. Learned executing Court vide impugned order dated 17.04.2019 held that the statement made by decree holder on 20.07.2018 before the Field Kanungo was not sufficient to uphold the objections raised by judgment debtors No.1 to 4. The stand taken by the decree holder in her reply to objection petition was considered to be clear intent on her part to execute decree against all the judgment debtors. Learned executing Court also made reference to an order dated 29.08.2018 passed by his predecessor-in-office whereby it was held that the decree could not be executed in part.
8. Taking into consideration the entire available material, learned executing Court dismissed the objections by holding that the decree was not rendered inexecutable by the statement of decree holder dated 20.07.2018. It was a composite decree against all the judgment debtors and for such reason also it could not be executed in part. As regards the objection as to unexecutability of decree in favour of the decree holder, learned executing Court held that the decree holder had purchased the suit land from her father-in-law late Shri M
