Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Sahdeo Sonar – Appellant
Versus
Kavita Devi W/o Jagdish Sonar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside of the order dated 20.05.2023 passed by learned Munsif, Koderma in Execution Case No.05 of 2013 by which the objection filed by the judgment debtors in the execution case has been rejected.
3. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein are the judgment debtors. He submits that the plaintiffs/opposite parties have instituted Title Suit No.21 of 2007 in the Court of learned Munsif, Koderma against the defendants praying therein a decree for declaration of their right, title, interest and confirmation of possession over Schedule-A lands and plaintiffs have also claimed declaration that the registered sale deed dated 06.09.2000 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4 be declared void ab-initio, illegal and not binding upon the plaintiffs and prayer was also made for grant of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the p
An executing court cannot question the merits of a decree; objections to execution must be based on jurisdictional issues or invalidity, not merit. Res judicata bars successive objections.
The executing court must execute decrees as rendered and cannot alter them; objections must be raised under prescribed provisions, and erroneous decrees remain binding until properly challenged.
Order 21 Rue 23 deals with the procedure to be followed after getting notice under Order 21 Rule 22.
Point of law: If once we accept the legal position that neither a contract for sale nor a decree passed on that basis for specific performance of the contract gives any right or title to the decree-h....
Words “any person” is wide enough to include even a person not bound by a decree claiming right in the property on his own including that of a tenant not party to suit or even a stranger.
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.
A court decree remains enforceable unless set aside, affirming ongoing jurisdiction for execution even post initial enforcement.
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.
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
