Friday, 30 September 2016

When court should not frame issues in execution of decree?

 From the perusal of the above, it would be clear that all questions arising between the parties relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree are to be determined by the Executing Court and the Executing Court must decide the question of fact raised by way of objections relating to execution of the decree, by framing necessary issues and by allowing the parties to lead evidence. However, it all depends upon nature and tenor of the objections raised by the judgment-debtor. Furthermore, if the objections are prima facie frivolous, vexatious, intended to delay the execution, vague and would amount to abuse of process of the Court, the Executing Court may dismiss the objections even without holding any inquiry but if by way of objections prima facie it is shown that the decree is not executable for some legal and valid reasons, the Executing Court is required to frame issues and record evidence and thereafter decide the objections. In the present case as referred to above, the objections filed by the judgment-debtor are not even worth consideration and on the face of it these have been filed with an intention to delay the execution of the decree dated March 26, 2004 passed by this Court and in any case these objections amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Centre For Advance Studies And ... vs Hakam Chand on 25 May, 2005
Equivalent citations: AIR 2006 HP 21

Bench: V Jain


1. This Execution Petition under Order 21 Rules 10 and 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the plaintiff-decree holder, seeking execution and registration of the sale deed as per the decree dated 26-3-2004, passed by this Court.
2 The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present execution petition are that plaintiff-decree holder, namely, Centre for Advance Studies and Engineering, had filed a suit against Hakam Chand, defendant, seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell dated July 22, 2000, for the sale of suit land for a sale consideration of Rs. 55,000/- per bigha and a sum of Rs. 13,500/- having been paid as earnest money. The said suit was contested by the defendant. Various issues were framed. Thereafter the case was adjourned from time to time as the parties wanted to settle the dispute between themselves. On March 26, 2004 the parties compromised the matter. Statements of Hakam Chand defendant and Sh. Rajnish Maniktala. Advocate, Counsel for the plaintiff were recorded in this Court on March 26, 2004. On the basis of the said compromise arrived at between the parties, in the form of aforesaid statements, this Court passed a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated July 22,2000 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, with the direction that the defendant shall execute and register the sale deed of the suit property and also the surrounding land owned by the defendant and his brothers, in case the brothers were willing to sell the land, free from all encumbrances, on receipt of the balance sale consideration at the rate of Rs. 4 lacs per bigha, after getting the land redeemed from State Bank of Patiala, with whom the suit land was mortgaged, within three months from the said date i.e. March 26, 2004, on a date to be fixed by the plaintiff with advance notice of at least one week to the defendant, failing which the plaintiff was held entitled to get the sale deed executed and registered through the nominee of the Registrar General of this Court. It was further directed that in case the plaintiff would fail to fix a date for registration of the sale deed within three months, from the said date i.e. March 26. 2004, the suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed. It is in execution of the said decree dated March 26, 2004 that the plaintiff-decree holder filed the present petition under Order 21 Rules 10 and 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC in this Court, for execution and registration of the sale deed as per decree dated March 26, 2004.
3. In the aforesaid petition under Order 21 Rules 10 and 11 read with Section 151 CPC, it was alleged by the plaintiff-decree holder that after the passing of the aforesaid decree, the plaintiff applied for grant of permission from the Government, as the earlier permission was for a specified period and the same had expired during litigation. Fresh permission dated June 14, 2004 was placed on the record as Annexure A2 and as per the said permission: the sale deed was to be executed within three months from the date of issue of the said permission. It was alleged that the plaintiff had been contacting the defendant for redemption of the suit land, which was mortgaged with the Bank, but the same had not yet been redeemed. It was alleged that after obtaining permission from the Government the plaintiff again approached the defendant to redeem the suit land, but he refused to do so and in its absence no time could be fixed for execution of the sale deed. It was alleged that in view of the decree passed by this Court, the sale deed was to be executed and registered through the nominee of the Registrar General of this Court on deposit of balance sale consideration in the Registry of this Court. Accordingly, the plaintiff-decree holder, while filing the present petition under Order 21 Rules 10 and 11 read with Section 151 CPC, in this Court, also deposited the requisite amount in the Registry of this Court on June 25, 2004, not only in respect of the land which was the subject matter of the aforesaid agreement to sell but also in respect of the surrounding land which was owned by the defendant and his brothers, as per the decree dated March 26, 2004 passed by this Court. It was also alleged that the plaintiff had sent letters to the defendant and his brothers on 5-4-2004, 11-5-2004 and 16-6-2004 for execution of the sale deed and for redeeming the mortgage, but nothing had been done so far. Those letters were placed on the record as Annexures A3 to A6 and the various demand drafts were also enclosed along with the present execution petition. It was accordingly prayed that the sale deed in respect of the suit land as well as the surrounding land owned by the defendant and his brothers may be executed and registered through the nominee of Registrar General of this Court, in pursuance of the decree dated March 26, 2004 passed by this Court.
4. Notice of this petition was given to Hakam Chand defendant-judgment debtor, who filed objections under Section 47 read with Order 21 Rule 32 and Section 151 CPC. In the said objections, it was alleged by the defendant-judgment debtor that the judgment debtor in a very bona fide manner approached the decree holder for making necessary arrangements for getting the sale deed executed and registered in his favour, but the decree holder time and again informed the judgment debtor that he was waiting for necessary permission in this regard under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, whereupon the judgment debtor offered his assistance in this regard. It was alleged that the judgment debtor also got the land in question redeemed released from the State Bank of Patiala on June 18, 2004, as per copy of Redemption Certificate issued by the Bank and annexed as Annexure R-I with the objection petition. It was alleged that the judgment debtor thereupon informed the decree holder regarding the redemption of the suit land from the bank on June 18, 2004 and requested the decree holder to comply with the terms of the decree, but the decree holder told the judgment debtor that the decree holder will send one week's notice to the judgment-debtor, as per the terms of the decree, whereupon the judgment debtor kept on waiting for the notice of the decree holder till June 22, 2004 and thereafter the judgment debtor served a written communication to the decree holder on June 22, 2004, copy Annexure R-2, through a registered letter and its acknowledgement is Annexure R-3. It was alleged that the sincere efforts made by the Judgment debtor to comply with the terms of the decree as per the order of this Court could not materialize in view of the act and conduct of the decree holder and the repeated visits of the judgment debtor to the office of the decree holder at Makhnumajra also could not make the decree holder to comply with the terms of the decree. It was alleged that the judgment debtor had bona fide requested the decree holder time and again to comply with the terms of the decree and the non-execution and registration of the sale deed was only on account of the failure of the decree holder to comply with the terms of the decree. It was alleged that as per the operative part of the decree, the decree holder had also failed to send the notice of at least one week to the judgment debtor and as such as per the decree dated March 26, 2004 the suit of the plaintiff shall be deemed to have been dismissed as the decree holder had failed to comply with the terms of the decree. It was alleged that the judgment debtor had served legal notice to the decree holder on July 5, 2004 through his counsel, copy Annexure R4 and postal receipt Annexure R5. It was alleged that as per the terms of the decree the suit of the plaintiff shall be deemed to have been dismissed after the expiry of the stipulated period of three months and the decree holder is not entitled to seek execution of the said decree and the present petition was liable to be dismissed. It was accordingly prayed that the present petition may be dismissed.
5. The decree holder filed reply to the objections petition, alleging therein that the judgment debtor never approached the decree holder and the judgment debtor had redeemed the suit land only at the time when less than seven days for the expiry of the aforesaid three months period was left. It was alleged that the Judgment debtor never informed the decree holder regarding the redemption of suit land. Even the notice Annexure R-2 does not mention this fact and no notice as alleged was delivered to the decree holder. It was denied that the judgment debtor ever visited the office of the decree holder. On the other hand, it was al-Jeged that the decree holder had been repeatedly requesting the judgment debtor to execute the sale deed. It was alleged that the decree was required to be executed.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.
7. Certain facts are not disputed. The plaintiff-decree holder, namely, Centre for Advance Studies and Engineering, had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated July 22, 2000 in this Court, bearing Civil Suit No. 94 of 2001, which was contested by Hakam Chand, defendant-judgment debtor. The parties compromised the matter and in pursuance of the said compromise, Hakam Chand defendant and the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff made statements in this Court on March 26, 2004. In pursuance of those statements, this Court passed the decree for specific performance on March 26, 2004 itself. Since the sale deed was not executed by the defendant, in pursuance of the aforesaid decree dated March 26, 2004, plaintiff-decree holder filed the present petition under Order 21 Rules 10 and 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC in this Court, on June 25, 2004 and along with the present execution petition, the plaintiff-decree holder had enclosed various bank drafts payable to Hakam Chand defendant and his brothers etc. These bank drafts include a bank draft dated 24-6-2004 for Rs. 5 lacs in favour of Hakam Chand defendant, and the remaining bank drafts were also dated 24-6-2004 for Rs. 3,60,000/- each in favour of Hakam Chand, defendant and his brothers and others.
8. In his statement made by Hakam Chand, defendant-judgment debtor in this Court on March 26, 2004, it was stated by him that he had settled the dispute with the plaintiff and that it had been agreed between them that the plaintiff will purchase the land, which was the subject matter of the dispute and the surrounding land owned by him and his brothers, which was about 10 bighas of land at the rate of Rs. 4 lacs per bigha in accordance with the offer made by the plaintiff. Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate, Counsel for the plaintiff, also made a statement on March 26, 2004 that he had the instructions to say that the plaintiff was willing to purchase the suit land and the adjoining land, which was about 10 bighas, owned by the defendant and his brothers, at the rate of Rs. 4 lacs per bigha and that the sale deed shall be executed within three months from the said date i.e. March 26, 2004, failing which the defendant shall not be bound to sell the land to the plaintiff. On the basis of these statements, made by the defendant and the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, this Court passed order and decree dated March 26, 2004. The operative part of the order dated March 26, 2004, which is the basis of the decree, reads as under :
In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, a decree for specific performance of agreement executed between the Plaintiff and defendant on July 22, 2000, is passed against the defendant. It is directed that the defendant shall execute and register the sale deed of the property subject matter of the suit, the surrounding land owned by the defendant and his brothers (about 10 bighas) if the brothers are willing to sell the land free from all encumbrances, on the receipt of balance sale consideration at the rate of Rupees 4 lakhs per bigha after getting the land redeemed from State Bank of Patiala with which the suit land is mortgaged within three months from today, on a date to be fixed by the plaintiff with advance notice of at least one week to the defendant failing which the plaintiff shall be entitled to get the sale deed executed and registered through the nominee of the Registrar General of this Court on deposit of the balance sale consideration in the Registry of this Court. If plaintiff fails to fix a date for the registration of the sale deed within three months from today, the suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed.
9. From the perusal of the above, it would be clear that the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated July 22, 2000, filed by the plaintiff, was decreed by this Court with the direction to the defendant to execute and register the sale deed of the suit property along with surrounding land owned by the defendant and his brothers (about 10 bighas), if the brothers were willing to sell the land, free from all encumbrances, on the receipt of the balance sale consideration at the rate of Rs. 4 lakhs per bigha after getting the land redeemed from the State Bank of Patiala, with whom the suit land was mortgaged, within three months from the said date, on a date to be fixed by the plaintiff with advance notice of at least one week to the defendant, failing which* the. plaintiff was held entitled to get the sale deed executed and registered through the nominee of the Registrar General of this Court on deposit of balance sale consideration in the Registry of this Court. It would also be clear that in case the plaintiff failed to fix a date for the registration of the sale deed within three months from the said date, the suit of the plaintiff shall be deemed to have been dismissed.
10. In the present case, as referred to above, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by this Court on March 26, 2004. Thereafter the plaintiff obtained extension of time for getting the sale deed executed and registered and the said extension of time was granted, vide letter dated June 14, 2004, copy Annexure A-2, filed on the record. So far as the defendant is concerned, he got the land redeemed from the State Bank of Patiala only on June 18, 2004, as would be clear from the copy of the Redemption Certificate Annexure R-1 placed on the record by the defendant-judgment debtor. After getting the suit land redeemed from the bank of June 18, 2004, the defendant-judgment debtor sent notice dated June 22, 2004, copy Annexure R-2, to the plaintiff-decree holder and the same was received by the plaintiff on June 26, 2004, as would be clear from the acknowledgment, copy Annexure R-3 produced by the defendant judgment debtor himself. As referred to above, before the receipt of the aforesaid notice dated 22-6-2004, copy Annexure R-2, on June, 26 2004, the plaintiff decree holder had already filed the present execution petition in this Court on June 25, 2004. It would also be clear from the above that even in the said notice, copy Annexure R-2 dated June 22, 2004, the defendant-judgment debtor had not specifically informed the plaintiff-decree holder about the suit land having been got redeemed by him on June 18, 2004 from the State Bank of Patiala. On the other hand, it was only mentioned in the said notice, copy Annexure R-2, that the defendant had complied with all the formalities and that the land was free from all encumbrances. As referred to above, this notice dated June 22, 2004 copy Annexure R-2, sent by the defendant judgment debtor to the plaintiff decree holder was received by the plaintiff decree holder on June 26, 2004, a day after the plaintiff decree holder had filed the present execution petition in this Court, which was filed on 25-6-2004.
11. The question that came up for consideration in the present petition is as to whether the plaintiff decree holder had complied with the decree dated March 26, 2004 and whether defendant judgment debtor had failed to comply with the said decree and as a result thereof whether the plaintiff decree holder is entitled to the execution and registration of the sale deed through this Court, in pursuance of the decree dated March 26, 2004 passed by this Court.
12. Admittedly, the suit property was mortgaged at the time when the aforesaid decree dated March 26, 2004 was passed by this Court. It is also not disputed before me that under the aforesaid decree dated March 26, 2004, passed by this Court, defendant judgment debtor Hakam Chand was required to get the suit land redeemed from the State Bank of Patiala, with whom the suit land was under mortgage, before the balance sale consideration was to be paid by the plaintiff-decree holder to the defendant-judgment debtor. It is also not disputed before me that defendant-judgment debtor had got the suit land redeemed from the State Bank of Patiala only on June 18, 2004, as would be clear from the Redemption Certificate, copy Annexure R-1, placed on record by the defendant-judgment debtor. Thus, it would be clear that after the decree was passed by this Court on March 26, 2004, the defendant-judgment debtor had got the suit land redeemed only on June 18, 2004.
It was only after coming to know about the suit land having been got redeemed by the defendant-judgment debtor that the plaintiff-decree holder was required to pay the balance sale consideration to the defendant-judgment debtor and thereupon the defendant-Judgment debtor was to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-decree holder. It was only on June 22, 2004 that the defendant-Judgment debtor had sent a letter copy Annexure R-2 to the plaintiff-decree holder informing the plaintiff that he (Hakam Chand, defendant) had fulfilled all the formalities and that his land was free from all encumbrances. This letter dated June 22, 2004 sent by the defendant judgment debtor to the plaintiff decree holder was admittedly received by the plaintiff decree holder only on June 26, 2004, as would be clear from the acknowledgement, copy Annexure R-3. Thus, it would be clear that it was only on June 26, 2004 that the plaintiff decree holder had come to know from the defendant judgment debtor in writing that the suit land had since been got redeemed by him. As referred to above, the land was got redeemed by the defendant judgment debtor only on June 18, 2004.
13. Once it is found that the defendant judgment debtor had got the suit land redeemed on June 18, 2004 and had intimated the plaintiff decree holder vide letter dated June 22, 2004, which letter was received by the plaintiff decree holder on June 26, 2004, in my opinion, it could not be said that there was any fault on the part of the plaintiff decree holder in complying with the decree dated March 26, 2004 passed by this Court. The plaintiff-decree holder had filed the present execution petition under Order 21 Rules 10 and 11 read with Section 151 CPC in this Court on June 25, 2004 and along with the present execution petition, the plaintiff-decree holder had enclosed one bank draft dated June 24, 2004 in the sum of Rs. 5 lacs in favour of Hakam Chand, defendant judgment debtor, towards the balance sale consideration, in respect of the suit land and had also enclosed seven bank drafts dated June 24, 2004 in the sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- each, total amounting to Rs. 25,20,000/- in favour of the defendant-judgment debtor Hakam Chand and his brothers and others, in respect of the surrounding land. Thus, the bona fide of the plaintiff-decree holder would be clear, inasmuch as, the plantiff-decree holder had deposited the balance sale consideration in respect of the land covered by the agreement to sell dated July 22, 2000 and the surrounding land, In this Court on June 25, 2004, in compliance with the decree dated March 26, 2004 passed by this Court. By no stretch of imagination could it be said that the plaintiff-decree holder was at fault nor could it be said that the plaintiff-decree holder had failed to comply with the aforesaid decree dated March 26, 2004 passed by this Court;
14. As referred to above, as per the decree dated March 26, 2004 passed by this Court, the defendant-judgment debtor was required to execute and get the sale deed registered in favour of the plaintiff decree holder, free from all encumbrances, on receipt of the balance sale consideration, after getting the land redeemed from the State Bank of Patiala, with whom the suit land was mortgaged, within three months from the date of its decree, on a date to be fixed by the plaintiff with advance notice of one week to the defendant, failing which the plaintiff was entitled to get the sale deed executed and registered through the nominee of Registrar General of this Court, on deposit of the balance sale consideration in the Registry of this Court. Thus, as per the said decree dated March 26, 2004, the plaintiff-decree holder was required to give at least one week notice to the defendant judgment-debtor, calling upon him to get the sale deed registered in his favour and on the said date the plaintiff was required to pay the balance sale consideration to the defendant and the defendant was required to execute and get the sale deed registered in favour of the plaintiff decree-holder. However, the plaintiff decree holder could give one week notice to the defendant judgment-debtor only if the defendant judgment-debtor had got the suit land redeemed from the State Bank of Patiala, with whom the land was under mortgage, inasmuch as, the defendant was required to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit land, not only free from all encumbrances, but specifically after getting the land redeemed from the State Bank of Patiala, with whom the land was under mortgage. Unless the defendant judgment-debtor had intimated the plaintiff decree holder that the suit land had been got redeemed by him, the plaintiff-decrees holder could not have given one week notice to the defendant-judgment-debtor for executing the sale deed. In the present case as referred to above it was only on June 18, 2004 that the defendant judgment-debtor got the suit land redeemed and thereafter he had given notice dated June 22, 2004 to the plaintiff decree holder and sent the-same by post and admittedly the said notice was received by the plaintiff decree holder on June 26, 2004. Since time was running, in order to avoid any complications, the plaintiff decree holder had filed the present execution petition in this Court on June 25, 2004 and had enclosed bank draft in favour of the defendant towards balance sale consideration of the suit land and also the bank drafts in favour of the defendant judgment-debtor and his brothers towards the cost of the surrounding land.
15. From the perusal of the facts and circumstances of the present case, as referred to above, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the plaintiff decree holder had failed to comply with the decree dated March 26, 2004 passed by this Court nor could it be said that the plaintiff decree holder had committed any default especially when the plaintiff decree-holder had filed the present execution petition in this Court on June 25, 2004 and had enclosed the balance sale consideration by way of bank draft in favour of the defendant-judgment-debtor. The allegation made by the defendant-judgment debtor, in his objection petition, that the defendant judgment debtor had informed the plaintiff decree holder at the time of redemption of the land from the Bank on June 18, 2004 in this regard, but the plaintiff decree holder had informed the defendant judgment-debtor that he will give one week notice to the judgment-debtor as per the terms of the decree whereupon the defendant judgment debtor kept on waiting for the notice from the plaintiff decree-holder till June 22, 2004 and thereupon the defendant judgment-debtor served the notice dated June 22, 2004 upon the plaintiff decree holder, in my opinion, cannot be accepted at its face, considering that in the notice dated June 22, 2004, copy Annexure R-2, no reference has been made that the defendant judgment-debtor had ever intimated the plaintiff-decree holder, earlier or otherwise, that he had got the suit land redeemed from the Bank. On the other hand, from the perusal of the letter dated June 22, 2004 copy Annexure R-2, sent by the defendant judgment-debtor to the plaintiff decree holder, it would be clear that by way of this letter dated June 22, 2004, the defendant judgment debtor had not specifically intimated the plaintiff-decree holder that the land had been redeemed by him, inasmuch as, in the said letter the defendant judgment-debtor had intimated the plaintiff decree holder, that the land of the defendant judgment-debtor was free from all encumbrances, as per the decree dated March 26, 2004. If the defendant judgment-debtor had intimated the plaintiff decree holder about the redemption of the suit land, earlier or otherwise, prior to the issuance of the letter dated June 22, 2004, this fact would have found mention in the letter dated June 22, 2004, copy Annexure R-2.
16. In the letter dated June 22, 2004 the defendant judgment-debtor had intimated the plaintiff decree-holder that the suit land was free from all encumbrances and the plaintiff decree holder was not obeying the order of this Court, inasmuch as, he had not paid the sale consideration and had not served any notice to the defendant judgment-debtor as required under the orders passed by this Court inasmuch as, the plaintiff decree holder was required to give at least one week notice to fix the date of the sale deed and accordingly the plaintiff decree holder was informed that if he failed to fulfill his condition within three months from the date of the order for fixing the date for registration of the sale deed, he would not have any right, title or interest in the suit land and his suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed. In my opinion, by writing this letter dated June 22, 2004, the defendant-judgment debtor cannot take any advantage, inasmuch as, it was only on June 18, 2004 that the defendant judgment debtor had got the suit land redeemed and had informed the plaintiff decree holder vide letter dated June 22, 2004 (received by him on June 26, 2004) that the land was free from all encumbrances. As referred to above by the time the aforesaid letter dated June 22, 2004 was received by the plaintiff decree holder on June 26, 2004 the period of three months fixed by this Court vide decree dated March 26, 2004, had expired and that being so, in order to avoid any difficulty and to avoid any hardship the plaintiff-decree holder had filed the present execution petition in this Court on June 25, 2004 along with the balance sale consideration by way of bank draft in favour of the defendant judgment-debtor. As referred to above, in the decree dated March 26, 2004 passed by this Court it was mentioned that the defendant judgment debtor was to get the sale deed executed and registered in respect of the suit land, free from all encumbrances, on receipt of the balance sale consideration, after getting the land redeemed from the State Bank of Patiala, within three months, on a date to be fixed by the plaintiff decree holder with advance notice of at least one week to the defendant judgment-debtor. It was also ordered that if the plaintiff decree holder would fail to fix a date for the registration of the sale deed within three months, the suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed. By filing of the present objection petition, the defendant-judgment-debtor wants to take advantage of the fact that the plaintiff decree holder had failed to fix a date for registration of the sale deed within three months, inasmuch as, he was required to give advance notice of at least one week to the defendant decree holder. In my opinion, from reading of the entire order and the decree dated March 26, 2004 passed by this Court and applying the principle of reasonable construction, it would be clear that the plaintiff-decree holder could have fixed a date for execution and registration of the sale deed and could have given one week notice to the defendant judgment-debtor only after the defendant judgment-debtor had informed the plaintiff decree holder that the land was free from all encumbrances and that he had got the suit land redeemed from the State Bank of Patiala, with whom the land was admittedly under mortgage. In the present case, since the defendant judgment-debtor got the suit land redeemed only on June 18, 2004 and intimated the plaintiff decree holder about it vide letter dated June 22, 2004, which was received by the plaintiff decree holder on June 26, 2004, it could not be said that the plaintiff decree holder was at fault because he had not given one week notice to the defendant judgment-debtor fixing a date for registration of a sale deed, within three months from the date of the decree. In my opinion, on the facts and circumstances of the present case and because of the conduct on the part of the defendant-judgment-debtor, it had become impossible for the plaintiff decree holder to have given advance notice of at least one week to the defendant judgment-debtor fixing a date for registration of the sale deed, within three months from the date of decree, since it was only on June 26, 2004 that the plaintiff decree holder had received the information that the land had been got redeemed by the defendant judgment-debtor and the same was free from all encumbrances. As referred to above, by that time, the time of three months as fixed by this Court had already expired. If after receipt of the aforesaid letter dated June 22, 2004 by the plaintiff decree holder on June 26, 2004, the plaintiff decree holder had given notice of one week to the defendant, then could be said that the plaintiff had failed to comply with the aforesaid decree dated March 26, 2004. In order to avoid such a situation and in order to show his bona fide, in my opinion, the plaintiff decree holder was perfectly justified in filing the present execution petition in this Court on June 25, 2004 and enclosing the balance sale consideration by way of bank draft in favour of the defendant-judgment debtor, with the present execution petition. As referred to above, this would show the bona fides of the plaintiff-decree holder that it was interested in the purchase of the suit land, as per decree dated March 26, 2004 passed by this Court.
17. As referred to above, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, the plantiff-decree holder could not be said to have violated the terms and conditions of the decree dated March 26, 2004 passed by this Court, nor could it be said that on account of the fault on the part of the defendant judgment-debtor, the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated July 22, 2000 shall be deemed to have been dismissed in pursuance of the decree dated March 26, 2004, merely because the plaintiff decree holder had failed to fix the date for the registration of the sale deed within three months from the date of the decree and/or had failed to give advance notice of at least one week to the defendant judgment-debtor in this regard. On the other hand, in my opinion, it was the defendant-judgment-debtor, who had committed the violation and had made it impossible for the plaintiff decree holder to give advance notice of one week to the defendant judgment-debtor fixing a date for the registration of the sale deed, inasmuch as, it was only on June 18, 2004 that the defendant judgment-debtor got the suit land redeemed and Intimated the plaintiff-decree-holder vide letter dated June 22, 2004 which was received by it on June 26, 2004. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, it could not be said that the plaintiff decree-holder had violated the terms and conditions of the decree dated March 26, 2004 passed by this Court in any manner whatsoever. On the other hand, it can be said that since defendant judgment-debtor had failed to execute and get the sale deed registered in favour of the plaintiff decree holder within three months from the date of decree, the plaintiff-decree holder was justified in filing the present execution petition in this Court on June 25, 2004 and enclosing the balance sale consideration in the form of bank draft in the name of the defendant-judgment-debtor with the execution petition and seeking a direction from this Court that the sale deed be got executed and registered by a nominee of the Registrar General of this Court as per the decree dated March 26, 2004 passed by this Court.
18. In Sh. Sohan Lal v. Sh. Sadhu Ram, Latest (2003) HLJ 154 : (AIR 2003 NOC 173 (Him Pra), it was held by this Court as under :
7. As per Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure all questions arising between the parties in the suit in which the decree was passed and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree are to be determined by the Executing Court and not by a separate suit. The Executing Court must decide the question of fact raised by way of objections relating to execution of the decree, by framing necessary issues and by allowing the parties to lead evidence, though it all depends upon the nature and tenor of the objections raised by the judgment-debtor. So far ease in hand is concerned, the question of fact raised by judgment-debtor was that the decree is not executable in view of the agreement arrived at between the parties, as depicted in the affidavit sworn in by the Decree Holder, which can be determined after framing the issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence. It cannot be determined in the cursory manner, as it has been done by the Executing Court.
8. Learned Counsel for the decree holder has supported the impugned order and has relied upon the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rocky Tyres, Chandigarh v. Ajit Jain, and this Court in M/s. K. N. Trading Company v. Masonic Fratenity of Shimla ILR 1995 (11) HP 1713. There is no quarrel to the proposition laid down in both these judgments that if the objections are prima facie frivolous, vexatious, intended to delay the execution, vague and would amount to abuse of process of the Court, the Executing Court may dismiss them without holding any inquiry, but if by way of objections prima facie it is shown that the decree is not executable for some legal and valid reasons the Executing Court is required to frame issues and record evidence and thereafter decide the objections.
19. From the perusal of the above, it would be clear that all questions arising between the parties relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree are to be determined by the Executing Court and the Executing Court must decide the question of fact raised by way of objections relating to execution of the decree, by framing necessary issues and by allowing the parties to lead evidence. However, it all depends upon nature and tenor of the objections raised by the judgment-debtor. Furthermore, if the objections are prima facie frivolous, vexatious, intended to delay the execution, vague and would amount to abuse of process of the Court, the Executing Court may dismiss the objections even without holding any inquiry but if by way of objections prima facie it is shown that the decree is not executable for some legal and valid reasons, the Executing Court is required to frame issues and record evidence and thereafter decide the objections. In the present case as referred to above, the objections filed by the judgment-debtor are not even worth consideration and on the face of it these have been filed with an intention to delay the execution of the decree dated March 26, 2004 passed by this Court and in any case these objections amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
20. As referred to above, even though defendant-judgment-debtor himself is to be blamed for not executing and getting the sale deed registered in favour of the plaintiff decree holder in compliance with the decree dated March 26, 2004 passed by this Court, yet the defendant-judgment-debtor had filed the present objection petition in this Court putting the entire blame on the plaintiff decree holder by alleging that the plaintiff-decree holder was at fault because the plaintiff-decree holder had not given advance notice of one week to the defendant judgment-debtor fixing a date for execution and registration of the sale deed, within three months from the date of the decree. As referred to above, the plaintiff-decree holder cannot be blamed in this regard, as it was the fault of the defendant-judgment-debtor himself, since the defendant judgment-debtor had got the land redeemed from the Bank only on June 18, 2004 and had intimated the plaintiff decree holder vide letter dated June 22, 2004, which was received by the plaintiff decree holder on June 26, 2004 and by that time the period of three months fixed by this Court had expired.

21. In view of the detailed discussions above, while dismissing the objection petition filed by the defendant-judgment-debtor, the present execution petition is allowed and it is directed that since the defendant judgment-debtor had failed to execute and get the sale deed registered in favour of the plaintiff decree holder in compliance with the decree dated March 26, 2004 passed by this Court within the stipulated period and even now he is not prepared to execute and get the sale deed registered in favour of the plaintiff-decree holder, the Registrar General of this Court shall nominate an official of this Court to execute and get the sale deed registered in favour of the plaintiff decree holder in respect of the suit property in compliance with the decree dated March 26, 2004 passed by this Court, at the cost of the plaintiff. It is further directed that defendant-judgment debtor Hakam Chand would be entitled to recover the balance sale consideration out of the amount of Rs. 5 lacs deposited by the plaintiff-decree holder along with the present execution petition in the form of bank draft dated June 24, 2004 payable to Hakam Chand, defendant-judgment debtor. It is further directed that in case said bank draft of Rs. 5 lacs has expired, it shall be the duty of the plaintiff decree holder to get the same renewed so that no difficulty is faced by the defendant judgment debtor in getting the balance sale consideration, by getting the bank draft encashed. So far as the remaining seven bank drafts of Rs. 3,60,000/- each, payable to Hakam Chand defendant-judgment debtor and his brothers etc. are concerned, the plaintiff-decree holder would be at liberty to take back those bank drafts since nothing has come on the record to show that the defendant-judgment-debtor and his brothers etc. are willing to sell the surrounding land measuring about 10 bighas to the plaintiff-decree holder.
Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment