Executing court cannot go behind final ex-parte decree or allow new documents absent due diligence; Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction limited to grave injustice, not re-appreciation of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

ROMESH VERMA, J.

1. The present petition arises out of the order, dated 29.11.2016, as passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., whereby an application filed by the present petitioners/ defendants/ Judgments Debtors under Order 8, Rule 3-A read with Section 151 CPC, has been ordered to be dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the original plaintiff, Gurdit Singh, filed a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction in the court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Dehra, District Kangra on 18.1.2005. It was averred in the plaint that the petitioners/judgment debtors took forcible possession of the vehicle of the plaintiffs/respondents/decree holders bearing registration No.HP-68-0258 being driven by Hardev Singh, son of plaintiff, at the instance of defendants in an illegal and mala fide manner. It was submitted that signatures of son of the plaintiff were obtained on the blank papers in an illegal manner. It was averred that the defendants be restrained not to mis-use the signatures of the plaintiff or his son obtained on the blank papers with further prayer to pass a decree directing the defendants to return the vehicle of the plaintiff.

3. In the said suit, the present petitioners/defendants were duly served. The defendants after proper service were represented though their counsel, Mr. Sushil Kumar, Advocate, however on 01.03.2011 when none appeared for the defendants, they were proceeded ex parte.

4. The learned trial court proceeded with the matter and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff, vide judgement and decree, dated 12.09.2011. It is fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the defendants that no appeal was preferred against the said judgment and decree before the competent court of law.

5. The decree holders/respondents filed an execution petition No. 43/2011 before the learned trial court. In the said execution petition, the decree holders filed an application under Order 21 Rules 11 A, 31, 32 (2), 38 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for arrest and detention of the judgment debtors in civil imprisonment.

6. On issuing notice in the aforesaid execution petition, the petitioners/judgment debtors appeared before the executing court through their counsel. The learned executing Court directed the judgment debtors to appear before the Court on 13.03.2012 but they failed to comply with the judgment and decree sought to be executed and therefore, their counsel sought an adjournment for filing the objections and the same was granted and the same was granted subject to payment of Rs.300/-. The said cost was not paid, rather the judgment debtors filed an application being CMA No. 338/2012 on 16.08.2012 under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC to set aside decree dated 12.09.2011 passed in C.S. No. 22/05, which application was dismissed on 07.11.2013. The judgment debtors were again directed to appear in person in the execution petition but they did not abide by the judgment and decree passed against them and they intentionally flouted the directions of the concerned Court, therefore, it was prayed that the judgment debtors be arrested and detained in civil imprisonment in the interest of justice.

7. The judgment debtors/petitioners filed a detailed reply to the said application and various objections with regard to the maintainability, locus standi, estoppel etc. were taken. On merits, all the