SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(P&H) 1601

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Nirmal Yadav, J.
Santosh Singh
Versus
Amar Kaur
Civil Revision No. 2199 of 2006,
Decided On : APRIL 21, 2006

The executing Court should allow an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective case if the objector raises some disputed question.

Headnote:

Objections - Execution of Decree - Opportunity to Prove - Disputed Questions

Fact of the Case:

The trial Court dismissed the objections raised by the petitioner without framing any issues and without giving opportunity to the objector to prove that execution petition was beyond limitation and the alleged decree-holders had no right to file the same.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the executing Court should allow an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective case if the objector raises some disputed question.

Issues: The main issue was the dismissal of objections without giving an opportunity to prove disputed questions related to the execution of the decree.

Ratio Decidendi: The executing Court should allow an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective case if the objector raises some disputed question.

Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside and the executing Court was directed to dispose of the objections after giving sufficient opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective case.

Judgment

Nirmal Yadav, J.

1. Learned Counsel contends that the trial Court has just dismissed the objections raised by the petitioner without framing any issues and without giving opportunity to the objector to prove that execution petition was beyond limitation and Satnam Singh and Ajmer Singh had no right to file the same. In support, the learned Counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in Woolways, Chandigarh and Ors. v. Central Bank of India, Chandigarh and Ors. (1989-2) 96 P.L.R. 559.

2. In the present case, the decree-holders have alleged that after purchasing the suit property in 1989, they have stepped into the shoes of the plaintiff. However, there is nothing on record whether the sale deed was actually executed in their favour or they stepped into the shoes of the original owner. Under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, all the objections relating to execution of a decree have to be decided by the executing Court. Although it is not incumbent on the executing court to frame issue unnecessarily and try the objection petition as a suit, but at the same time, if objector raises some disputed question and wants to lead evidence, then executing Court should allow an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective case. In the present case, the objectors have categorically stated that suit was filed by Subedar Surat Singh on behalf of the original owners as their general attorney. He died before filing the execution petition. It is stated that sale deed, if any, in favour of Satnam Singh and Ajmer Singh is a fictitious, forged and void document. In such circumstances, an opportunity should have been afforded to prove the averments made by the objector in his objection petition and objections should not have been dismissed summarily. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is set aside and executing Court is directed to dispose of the objections after giving sufficient opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective case.Petition stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top