Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Vinod K.Sharma, J.
Joginder Singh
Versus
Raja Singh
C.R. No. 4119 of 2004,
Decided On : OCTOBER 12, 2006
issues - execution of decree - The court held that objections filed by the third party to execution of the decree have to be treated as a civil suit and matter is to be decided after framing the issues and permitting the parties to lead evidence in support thereof. The third party has no right to file a separate suit and is required to raise all objections in the execution application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a revisi on petition against the order passed by the Civil Judge, which framed issues to adjudicate the objections of a third party to the execution of the decree.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that objections filed by the third party to execution of the decree have to be treated as a civil suit and matter is to be decided after framing the issues and permitting the parties to lead evidence in support thereof.
Issues: The main issue was whether the executing Court was justified in framing the issues to adjudicate the objections of the third party to the execution of the decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Order 21 Rules 97 to Rule 101 of the C. P. C., which stipulate that the third party has no right to file a separate suit and is required to raise all objections in the execution application.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revisi on petition, stating that the order impugned was passed in consonance with the settled law and did not call for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction.
VINOD K. SHARMA, J.
1. The present revisi on petition has been filed against the order dated 21.4.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jalandhar vide which issues have been framed to adjudicate the objections of third party to the execution of the decree.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it was not open to the executing Court to frame the issues in the present case as the decree was passed in favour of the petitioner in the year 1996 and, therefore, he cannot be denied the fruit of the said decree.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and find no force in the contention raised. It is settled law that objections filed by the third party to execution of the decree have to be treated as a civil suit and matter is to be decided after framing the issues and permitting the parties to lead evidence in support thereof. The third party, in view of the provisions of Order 21 Rules 97 to Rule 101 of the C. P. C. has no right to file a separate suit and is required to raise all objections in the execution application.
4. In view of what have been stated above, the order impugned has been passed in consonance with the settled law, which does not call for any interference by this Court in the revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed.
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
