Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.

1. Since no one appeared on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4, vide order dated 6.1.2015 passed by this Court, they were proceeded against ex parte. A decree dated 26.3.1998 [Annexure P/2] was sought to be executed by the Decree Holder [D.H.] wherein with the intervention of the Executing Court, sale deed dated 24.2.2011 was executed in favour of D.H., petitioner herein. Warrants of possession were issued. The bailiff concerned had reported about the resistance caused by the Judgment Debtors in execution of the decree for possession. Consequently, police help for execution of the warrants of possession was ordered.

2. It was at this stage that an Objection Petition came from the Objector/respondent No. 5 claiming himself to be a vendee from JDs, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein. For deciding the said objection petition, vide order dated 19.10.2013 [Annexure P/1], the Executing Court had framed the following issues and has fixed the case for evidence of the Objector.

"1. Whether the Decree Holders are having no concern with the property in question? OPD

2. Whether the Decree Holders are having no right, title or interest qua the property in question? OPD

3. Whether the Decree Holders threatened the Objector to dispossess from suit property illegally with the help of friends? OPD

4. Whether the Objection Petition is not maintainable? OPDH

5. Whether the appeal, pending in the Court of Sh. A.S. Virk, Ld. ADJ, Ludhiana, is having any effect upon the interest of DH? OPDH

6. Relief."

3. This order of 19.10.2013 is under challenge in this revision petition filed by the decree holder, petitioner herein, invoking supervisory powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. It is claimed that a reading of the impugned order [Annexure P/1] reveals that there is no application of mind by the Executing Court and the issues were framed in routine. It is further claimed that the Objector-vendee having purchased the property from J.Ds, respondents No. 1 to 4 herein, who had been left with no right title or interest in the land as the sale deed dated 24.2.2011 had already been executed in favour of the Decree Holder, could not have any title.

5. Learned counsel for the Objector, respondent No. 5 herein, on the other hand, has claimed that he being a third party and not privy to the decree is entitled to get adjudication of his Objection Petition from the Executing Court and it is only possible after evidence is led by the parties. Validity and legality of the impugned order is asserted.

6. Respondent No. 6 has also resisted to this petition, but had not much in his defence to offer.

7. It is important to note that the decree under execution is pending since 26.03.1998. The Execution Application, earlier preferred, had ended in execution of sale deed in favour of the Decree Holder on 24.02.2011, but possession could not be delivered. It is the second round of litigation which the Decree Holder is taking, wherein possession is sought to be delivered to him from the JDs.

8. Contention of learned counsel for the contesting respondents that nothing wrong was done by the Executing Court in framing the issues in deciding the Objection Petition, as it was the only course available with the Executing Court, is not correct. No doubt, third party objections require adjudication independently, but if the Objection Petition, on the face of it, is so frivolous and vexatious, the Executing Court is not bound to frame issues for adjudication of the same.

9. At this stage, reference may be made to the authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Satyawati v. Rajinder Singh and another 2014(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 324 : 2013(6) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 681 : 2013 [7] SCALE 371, wherein, referring to the observations of Hon'ble Privy Council made in 1872 regarding difficulties faced by a Decree Holder in execution of a decree, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paras No. 2 and 3 of this judgment had discussed the plight of a Decree Ho

Click Here to Read the rest of this document