Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
Gopal Ji Agrawal – Petitioner
Versus
Anurag Kumar Dixit and Others – Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. 6031 of 2024
Decided On : 31-05-2024
CIVIL PROCEDURE - EXECUTION OF DECREES - ORDER 13 RULE 10, SECTION 47 CPC - The court emphasized that the executing court cannot go behind the decree and must execute it as it stands. It interpreted Order 13 Rule 10(1) CPC and Section 47 CPC, establishing that objections not raised in the original application cannot be introduced in revision. The court found that the tenant's attempts to delay execution were without merit, leading to the quashing of the stay order issued by the revisional court.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed a suit for eviction against the tenant, which went through multiple rounds of litigation, ultimately favoring the landlord. The tenant's subsequent applications and revisions were aimed at delaying the execution of the decree, including an application under Order 13 Rule 10(1) CPC to summon records from an unrelated case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tenant's application under Order 13 Rule 10(1) CPC was an attempt to delay the execution process and that the revisional court erred in staying the execution based on new facts not part of the original application. The court reaffirmed that the executing court cannot go beyond the decree and must execute it as it is.
Issues: Whether the executing court can consider objections not raised in the original application and whether the revisional court had the jurisdiction to stay execution proceedings based on new facts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the executing court is bound to execute the decree as it stands and cannot entertain objections that were not raised in the original application. The revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction by considering new facts and staying the execution.
Final Decision: The impugned order dated 25.1.2024 passed by the revisional court was quashed, and the execution court was directed to proceed with the execution of the decree without delay.
JUDGMENT :
NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
1. Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Sashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Udayan Nandan along with Sri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel for respondents.
2. Present petition has been filed with following relief:
3. Brief facts of the case are that SCC Suit No. 8 of 1981 was filed by landlord/petitioner on 8.12.1981 and after hearing the parties, the same was dismissed on 27.11.1991 not accepting the tenant landlord relationship. Against the said order, SCC Revision No. 1 of 1992 was filed by the landlord/ petitioner, which was also dismissed vide order dated 20.07.1992. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42284 of 1992 was filed before this Court challenging both the orders, which was allowed vide order dated 18.09.2008. Thereafter, Civil Misc. Review Application No. 250566 of 2008 was filed by the tenant, which was dismissed on 23.03.2010. S.L.P. No. 16223-16224/2010 was also filed before Hon’ble Apex Court by the tenant against the orders dated 18.09.2008 and 23.03.2010, which was dismissed on 7.2.2017. Issue attained finality.
4. As matter was remanded, SCC Court has again heard the case and SCC Suit No. 8 of 1981 also decreed on 22.03.2010. Thereafter, execution case no. 3 of 2010 was also filed by the landlord/ petitioner on 13.10.2010. Tenant filed SCC Revision No. 98 of 2010 challenging the order/ decree dated 22.3.2010. After hearing both the parties SCC Revision No. 98 of 2010 was dismissed vide order dated 23.01.2016. The aforesaid two orders were assailed by filing Misc. Petition U/A 227 No. 2639 of 2016 before this Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 18.10.2019. Matter attained finality as no SLP was filed.
5. Thereafter, defendant/tenant has also filed application to adjourn the case for filing objection under Section 47 CPC. After hearing the application filed by the tenant, executing court dismissed the objection on 5.5.2022. The order dated 5.5.2022 was assailed by the tenant/ defendant by filing SCC Revision No. 55 of 2022, which was also dismissed on 3.8.2022. The orders dated 5.5.2022 & 3.8.2022 were assailed by the tenant/defendant by filing Misc. Petition No. 6945 of 2022 on 17.8.2022. On 2.11.2022, Misc. Petition No. 2639 of 2016 and Misc. Petition No. 6945 of 2022 were clubbed together and dismissed after hearing the parties.
6. Thereafter, one another application was filed by tenant/ defendant under Order 13 Rule 10(1) CPC for summoning the record of Original Suit No. 35 of 1958 in which landlord/ decree holder has filed objection. On 18.01.2024, executing court after hearing the objection filed by decree holder bearing 251 Ga2, dismissed the application. Thereafter, tenant/ defendant challenged the order dated 18.01.2024 by filing revision before District Judge, Azamgarh and vide order dated 25.01.2024, order passed by executing court dated 18.01.2024 was stayed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that application No. 251 Ga2 has been filed under Order 13 Rule 10(1) CPC only to delay the execution proceeding, which was rightly rejected by execution court vide order dated 18.01.2024 observing the same.
8. He next submitted that against that Civil Revision No. 4 of 2024 was filed by the tenant/ defendant entirely on different facts, which are not the part of earlier application filed under Order 13 Rule 10(1) CPC in which revisional court has incorrectly stayed the order dated 18.01.2024 in execution proceeding. He firmly submitted that first of all, record so summoned through application under Order
A decree which is a nullity can be objected to at the execution stage, but a decree which is erroneous either in law or on facts cannot be objected to at the execution stage.
The Execution Court's rejection of a petition under Section 47 of the CPC was justified due to the petitioners' inconsistent claims over property ownership and tenancy, indicating a deliberate attemp....
An ex parte decree that is cryptic and non-compliant with procedural requirements cannot be executed; necessary amendments to parties and relief sought must be pursued to validate execution.
The court emphasized the limited grounds on which a decree is unexecutable and highlighted that the right of the Decree Holder to obtain relief is determined in accordance with the terms of the decre....
The executing court cannot go behind the decree unless it is a nullity, and re-agitating objections already dismissed in a previous petition would amount to an abuse of process of law.
(1) Inordinate delay in execution of decree - Pure civil matters take a long time to be decided and it does not end with a decision, as execution of a decree is an entirely new phase in long life of ....
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
