Sneh Vaish & Anr v. Purshottam Bhageria

1. The petitioners have filed these two petitions bearing CM(M) Nos.733/2015 and 736/2015 impugning the order dated 24.07.2015 passed in Execution Petitions No.23/2015 and 24/2015 respectively whereby the Executing Court was pleased to issue notice ofthe execution petitions to the respondents/judgment debtors. CM/V)Nos.733 736of2015 Page I of[4] 2015:DHC:10826

2. Though Caveat Nos.829/2015 and 830/2015 [in CM(M) No.733/2015] and Caveat Nos.834/2015 and 835/2015 [in CM(M) No.736/2015] have been filed but none has appeared on behalf of the eaveators/respondents despite passover.

3. Issue notice to the respondents vide ordinary process,speed post and courier,returnable for October 15,2015. Dasti,as well.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as she wants to argue the matter today itself, no notice is required to be sent to the respondents and date October 15,2015 may be cancelled.

5. As requested by learned counselforthe petitioners,date 15.10.2015 is cancelled.

6. Heard learned counselfor the petitioners. th

7. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 24 July, 2015 whereby the Court has issued notice ofthe execution petition to the ID for October,2015.The impugned order reads as under:- "Present: Proxy counselfor theDH Today lawyers are stated to be on strike on the issue of pecuniaryjurisdiction. Heard.Reportperused. Issue notice ofthis execution petition against the JD on fdingPF/RCfor 09.10.2015 Sd/- ADJ-04/Central/THC"

8. Ms.Gurkamal Hora,learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in these cases the civil suits had been filed in December, 1999 for ejectment,recovery ofdamages,mesne profit and damagesfor unauthorized use and occupation oftenanted premises on the mezzanine and second floor in respectofthe property bearing No.42,Community Centre,New Friends CM(M)Nos.733& 736of2015 Page2of[4] Colony, New Delhi-110065. The said matters bearing Suit Nos. 361/2003 and 365/2003 were settled through mediation process at Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and compromise decrees were passed in both the suits interms ofsettlement dated 18^July,2006.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that under the terms of settlementthe possession should have been handed over by the respondents to the petitioner-decree holder on or before3L'May,2015.

10. Ithas been furthersubmitted thatonfailure ofthe respondentsto hand over the possession the Execution Petition Nos. 23/2015 and 24/2015 were filed but the learned Executing Court instead of issuing warrants of possession, issued notice to the JDs/respondents which has caused lots of harassment and hardship to the petitioners/decree holders.

11. Before appreciating the contention raised on behalfofthe petitioners it is necessary to refer to Order XXI Rule 22 CPC which provides as to when notice to show cause has to be issued in execution proceedings. Order XXI Rule 22 CPC reads as under "22.Notice to show cause against execution in certain cases.- (1) Where an applicationfor execution is made— (a)more than twoyears after the date ofthe decree, or (b)against the legal representative ofaparty to the decree or where an application is madefor execution ofa decreefiled under theprovisionsofsection 44A,or

(C) against the.assignee or receiver in insolvency, where the party to the decree has been adjudgedto be andnsolvent). The court executing the decree shall issue a notice to the person against whom execution is appliedfor requiring him to show cause, on a date to befixed, why the decree should not be executedagainst him: CM(M)Nos.733& 736of2015 Page3of[4] Provided that no such notice shall be necessary in consequence ofmore than two years having elapsed between the date ofthe decree and the applicationfor execution ifthe application is made within two yearsfrom the date ofthe last Order againsttheparty against whom execution is appliedfor, made on any previous application for execution, or in consequence ofthe application being made against the legal representative of the judgment debtor, if upon a previous applicationfor execution againstthesameperson the courthas orderedexecution to issue againsthim. (2) Nothing in the foregoing sub-rule shall be deemed to preclude the courtfrom issuing any process in execution ofa decree without issuing the notice thereby prescribed, iffor reasonsto be recorded, itconsiders thatthe issue ofsuch notice would cause unreasonable delay or would defeat the ends of justice. '

12. In the instant cases,the compromise decrees were passed in the year

2006. The Executing Court has committed no illegality in issuing notice to the respondents/judgement debtors. It may be further noted that despite the fact that lawyers were on strike, instead of giving simple adjournment the learned Executing Court issued notice on 2A^July,2015 for a short date i.e. th 9 October, 2015. This order infact was a step forward for expeditious disposal ofthe execution petitions.

13. Finding no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, both the petitions are dismissed.