The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with court orders in execution of decrees, and the limitations on the imposition of costs in civil litigation.

Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. –

By means of the present petition, the petitioner seeks for quashing of the order dated 16.03.2016 passed by the Revisional Court whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 21.12.2012 passed by J.S.C.C. Court in S.C.C Execution Case no. 10 of 1998 is rejected with the cost of Rs. 10,000/- payable to the decree holder by depositing the said amount in the Waqf account within 15 days.

2. The present petitioner who is heir of the judgment debtor/tenant namely Late. Mohd. Saddiq filed an objection before the Executing Court in Execution Case no. 10 of 1998 with the contention that under a new contract of tenancy with the current Mutawalli, appointed by the Waqf Board, he had again entered into said property which admittedly belongs to the Waqf. The submission is that the objections raised by him were required to be decided by the Executing Court but it had wrongly proceeded to issue Parwana Dakhal by order dated 21.12.2012 without adjudication of the objections of the petitioner to resist his dispossession. Submission is that the petitioner is in possession of the suit property as tenant and therefore, he has a right to resist the dispossession of the tenant under Order 21, Rule 97CPC.

3. To deal with this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, relevant fact of the matter are required to be noted.

Admitted facts of the matter are that the SCC suit No. 495 of 1979 filed by Waqf Vilyati Begam against Late Mohd. Saddiq, father of the petitioner was decreed on 18.02.1998 in favour of the Waqf. The Revision No. 18 of 1998 filed in the Court of District Judge, Bareilly was also dismissed on 26.05.1998. The writ petition challenging both the orders was dismissed on 14.09.2012. It appears that the judgment debtor namely Mohd. Saddiq died in the year 2002, during the pendency of the writ petition and a substitution application was filed by his heir, the petitioner herein. The writ petition filed by father of the petitioner namely writ petition No.20376 of 1998 was dismissed on 14.09.2012 with the following observation and directions;-

“4. In the above facts and circumstances, it is provided that petitioner, if files an affidavit within one week from today before the Trial Court containing an undertaking that he shall vacate the premises in question and hand over its vacant possession to the landlord respondent within three months from today, the proceedings for execution of judgments impugned in this writ petition shall not proceed. Petitioner shall also pay the entire arrears of rent within the aforesaid period.

5. However, in case of any default, the above indulgence granted by this Court shall automatically cease and it would be open to landlord to proceed for execution of impugned judgments/orders immediately thereafter in accordance with law.

6. It is also provided that in case the petitioner-tenant after filing affidavit, as aforesaid, and enjoying deferment of vacation of premise in question fail to comply with any of the conditions, as aforesaid, he shall be liable to pay for such non compliance of pious undertaking given to the Court an exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000/- which shall also be recovered from petitioner-tenant along with execution proceedings, if such necessity arises.

7. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is dismissed.”

4. A perusal of the order passed by the Writ Court on 14.09.2012 clearly indicates that the petitioner herein was required to give an undertaking before the Executing Court that he shall vacate the premises in question and handover its vacant possession to the landlord/respondent within three months from the date of the order. It appears that no such undertaking was filed by the petitioner and hence the execution case had proceeded. The petitioner now appeared in the execution case to raise a plea regarding new contract of tenancy regarding the suit property arrived between him and the new Mutawalli, during the pende