Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RSA 167/2009
20th May, 2014 PRADEEP CHAND GIRI ......Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K.Vali and Mr. Tuhin, Advs.
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Adv. with Mr. Ishaan Chhaya, Adv.
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. The present regular second appeal is filed against the impugned judgments deciding objections in executions. By the concurrent judgments, execution petition was dismissed and the objections of the respondent/objector were allowed. The objections have been decided without framing of issues and leading of evidence.
2. Order 21 of CPC was amended by Act 104 of 1976 along with other provisions of CPC, and after the amendment, objections which are filed by which the objector claims a title in the suit property independent of 2014:DHC:2673 the judgment debtor, have to be tried like a suit inasmuch as filing of a suit by an objector who objects to execution of a decree is barred. Objections therefore are in a nature of suit and have to be heard and decided more or less as per the proceedings of a suit.
3. Since in the present case no issues have been framed and both the parties were not allowed to lead evidence as per the relevant provisions of Order 21 Rules 97 to 103 CPC, and as applicable, parties agree that the impugned judgments dated 28.08.2004 and 30.10.2006 be and are thus set aside and the objections of the respondent/objector will be decided afresh after both the parties are allowed to lead their evidence in support of their cases. It is also clarified that nothing in the impugned judgments will influence the court for passing of a fresh judgment in accordance with law after evidence is led by both the parties.
4. Accordingly with the consent of parties impugned judgments are set aside and objections which are filed by the objector/respondent are remanded for a fresh decision by the executing court. The executing court will frame issues as per the objections and the reply thereto of the respondent/decree holder, and thereafter give necessary opportunities to the parties to lead evidence. Objections thereafter will be decided in accordance with law.
5. At the request of both the parties it is noted that unnecessary adjournments will not be granted and the executing court will impose heavy costs on taking adjournment.
6. Let the parties appear before the District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 31.07.2014. The District and Sessions Judge will mark the execution petition and the objections to a competent court for disposal in accordance with law. Parties are left to bear their own costs. MAY 20, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. mm