Budh Sen v. Ajit Singh; Budh Sen v. Satyapal Singh

1. These petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment, inasmuch as the impugned judgment of the executing court in both the cases is the same.

2. The petitioner was the defendant in the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs/decree holders. The suit for possession, permanent injunction and mesne profits/damages was decreed in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties before the mediation centre on 07.3.2008/ 2014:DHC:5377 14.3.2008. The objector/petitioner claimed that settlement was not validly arrived at because the settlement papers were wrongly got signed by the decree holders/plaintiffs but that defence was rejected by the trial court. An appeal filed against the decree by the petitioner/objector was also dismissed, and further the Regular Second Appeal filed in this Court being RSA No.157/2011 was also dismissed.

3. The only ground raised in the objection petition was that the suit property has been acquired by the Government, and therefore the decree holders/respondents/plaintiffs had no right to get the consent decree passed in their favour pursuant to the settlement before the mediation centre.

4. It is settled law that the executing court cannot go behind the decree. It is only in case that a decree is found to have been passed by the court having no inherent jurisdiction, then the decree cannot be executed. Issues on merits which ought to have been raised in the suit cannot be raised by means of objections in the execution petition, and therefore contentions of the petitioner/objector that the land stood acquired by the Government, and consequently the consent decree of possession could not have been passed, is not available in execution proceedings to the petitioner/objector because it is an issue of merits. In any case, the plaintiffs/respondents/decree holders have stated that merely sending of a letter dated 20.8.2002 (exhibited as Ex.PW1/33 in the suit) does not mean that the land has been acquired by the Government because in fact the land was never acquired by the Government and the plaintiffs/respondents/decree holders did not receive any amount or any alternative flat in terms of a scheme of the Government on the land being acquired.

5. In my opinion, the objections filed by the petitioner/objector, who was the defendant in the suit and against whom a consent decree was passed are clearly an abuse of the process of law. In fact, objections were liable to be dismissed in limine because the judgment debtor who is a defendant in the suit, cannot object to the decree in which he was a defendant, much less on a settlement arrived at between the parties before the mediation centre, as the decree is final and binding on the petitioner/defendant as per Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure Act, 1908 (CPC).

6. These petitions, as also the objections in the execution petitions, therefore being an abuse of process of the law, are dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- in each petition. Costs be paid within a period of four weeks from today.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J OCTOBER 15, 2014