An executing court cannot question the validity of a decree and must execute it as per its terms, reaffirming that the decree remains binding until set aside.

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner who is a Decree Holder in a proceeding in Execution Case No.2123/2006 is before this Court being aggrieved by the orders dated 25.04.2018 and 26.04.2018 passed by the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (Executing Court) by dismissing the said Execution petition and cancelling the Deed of Sale dated 15.03.2013 that had been executed in favour of the petitioner through the Court process.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, petitioner herein had entered into an agreement dated 05.05.2003 with one Smt.Ramakka, her husband Sri Narasimhaiah and their son Sri Babu, agreeing to purchase property being vacant residential site bearing katha No.19/1, Kadirenahalli Village, coming within (Ward No.55 of Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike) Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring East-West: 30 feet and North-South 20 feet. The said agreement has been registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Kengeri as document No.BNG(U)- KNGR/2753/2003-2004/1-6. It appears non performance of the said agreement by the vendors therein constrained the petitioner herein to file OS No.8453/2003 on the file of XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. The said suit was filed only against Smt.Ramakka, who is shown in the agreement as vendor No.1. She was placed ex-parte. By the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2006, the suit came to be decreed, directing defendants to execute registered Deed of Sale in favour of plaintiff within six months by receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.5,000/-. Non-compliance of the said decree led the petitioner herein to file the above Execution case in No.2123/2006. A Deed of Sale dated 15.03.2013 came to be executed by the Executing Court in favour of the petitioner herein duly registered as Document No.BNG(U)-BSK/13397/2012-13.

Petitioner, thereafter, sought for delivery of possession of the said property by filing an application under order XXI Rule 35 on 18.08.2015. Apparently, when the said order was sought to be executed, petitioner learnt that one K.B.Ganapathi Bhat, who is respondent No.2 in this petition was in occupation of the said property claiming to have purchased the said property in terms of a Deed of Sale dated 04.09.2014 purportedly executed by aforesaid Narasimhaiha and his son Babu. This led the petitioner to file an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in the aforesaid Execution case seeking to implead respondent No.2- K.B. Ganapathi Bhat as proposed judgment debtor No.2. By the impugned order dated 25.04.2018, the Executing Court rejected the said application. It appears that having dismissed the application for impleading, the Executing Court had directed the very same proposed judgment debtor No.2 to file an application to get the Deed of Sale dated 15.03.2013 cancelled. Accordingly, posting the matter on the very next day, i.e. on 26.04.2018, and has allowed the said application and cancelled the Deed of Sale dated 15.03.2013 that was executed by the Executing Court in favour of the petitioner. It is these two orders which are called in question before this Court, in this petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition, vehemently submits that the orders impugned in this petition passed by the Executing Court are illegal and without jurisdiction. He submits that the Executing Court while assigning the reasons to pass the impugned orders has exceeded its jurisdiction. That the Executing Court ought not to have gone into the merits or otherwise of the decree which are passed clearly violating the settled principles of law. He relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi Vs. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman and Others, [1970 (1) SCC 670] and Rameshwar Dass Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Another, [(1996) 5 SCC 728], in support of his submission. Hence, seeks allowing of the writ petition.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 at the outset submi