Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C.R.P. 69/2010
PALTOORAM DECD THRU LRS Petitioners
Through; Mr. Vivek Singhal, Advocate.
C.R.P. 69/2010
PALTOORAM DECD THRU LRS Petitioners
Through; Mr. Vivek Singhal, Advocate.
VERSUS
UMA DEVI DECD THRU LRS Respondents
Through: Mr. Amarjit Singh, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Amarjit Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
15.09.2011 Today again adjournment is being sought on behalf of the petitioners, who are the unsuccessful defendants in a suit for possession and damages and have already lost the battle in respect of the suit property right upto the Apex Court, as stated by the counsel appearing today. They have suffered a decree of possession in the trial Court.
Their appeal was rejected by the First Appellate Court and then the second appeal was also rejected by this Court. Counsel for the petitioners informs that the Special Leave
Petition filed against the
15.09.2011 Today again adjournment is being sought on behalf of the petitioners, who are the unsuccessful defendants in a suit for possession and damages and have already lost the battle in respect of the suit property right upto the Apex Court, as stated by the counsel appearing today. They have suffered a decree of possession in the trial Court.
Their appeal was rejected by the First Appellate Court and then the second appeal was also rejected by this Court. Counsel for the petitioners informs that the Special Leave
Petition filed against the
ORDER
of this Court dismissing the second appeal though was filed but subsequently the same has been withdrawn. Adjournment is being sought despite the fact that on the last date of hearing the matter was adjourned for today despite strong opposition on behalf of the respondents-decree holders. Today Mr. Vivek Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners says that now the petitioners have decided to avail of the services of another senior counsel but which senior counsel has to be engaged has not so far been decided. Request for adjournment is today also strongly opposed on the ground that respondents - decree holders having succeeded in the legal battle to get possession of their property, which was initiated way back in the year 1990, have till date not been able to get the possession and even the Executing
Court is entertaining each and every frivolous objection petition filed on behalf of the petitioners - judgment debtors and thattoo despite thefact thatthisCourt has
C.R.P. 69/2010 page 10/2
2011:DHC:9183 r specifically refused to grant stay ofexecution and theExecuting Court is not proceeding to execute the decree.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant any further adjourrmient to the petitioners. I have given an opportunity to the learned counsel appearing today on behalf of the petitioners to argue but he says that he has no instructions to argue as the petition is to be argued by a senior counsel.
So, I have myself with the assistance of the counsel for the respondents gone through the recordincluding the impugned orderpassedby the Executing Courtrejecting the objections filed by the petitioners - judgment debtors. I find that in the garb of objections the petitioners-judgment debtors had sought to impugn the judgment, which had been passed in the suit and affirmed by the First Appellate Court also, on the grounds whichhad been urgedby them during the trial also. The learned trial Courthas rejected those objections on the ground that the same were raised during the trial also and the objectors having failed to get any relief in appeal could not be allowed to raise same very points in the execution proceedings. The objections were rejected with costs of? 5,000 and which have till date not been paid to the respondents despite the fact that this Court had directed them to pay within four weeks on 19.08.2010 and then further period of two weeks was granted on 25.11.2010.
I find no material irregularity or perversity in the impugned order rejecting the petitioners' objections. This revision petition being absolutely frivolous and a gross abuse of the process of the Court is dismissed with costs of? 40,000.
C.R.P. 69/2010 p(,g^ 2of2 kv.
P.K. BHASIN,J SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 nk 2011:DHC:9183
Court is entertaining each and every frivolous objection petition filed on behalf of the petitioners - judgment debtors and thattoo despite thefact thatthisCourt has
C.R.P. 69/2010 page 10/2
2011:DHC:9183 r specifically refused to grant stay ofexecution and theExecuting Court is not proceeding to execute the decree.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant any further adjourrmient to the petitioners. I have given an opportunity to the learned counsel appearing today on behalf of the petitioners to argue but he says that he has no instructions to argue as the petition is to be argued by a senior counsel.
So, I have myself with the assistance of the counsel for the respondents gone through the recordincluding the impugned orderpassedby the Executing Courtrejecting the objections filed by the petitioners - judgment debtors. I find that in the garb of objections the petitioners-judgment debtors had sought to impugn the judgment, which had been passed in the suit and affirmed by the First Appellate Court also, on the grounds whichhad been urgedby them during the trial also. The learned trial Courthas rejected those objections on the ground that the same were raised during the trial also and the objectors having failed to get any relief in appeal could not be allowed to raise same very points in the execution proceedings. The objections were rejected with costs of? 5,000 and which have till date not been paid to the respondents despite the fact that this Court had directed them to pay within four weeks on 19.08.2010 and then further period of two weeks was granted on 25.11.2010.
I find no material irregularity or perversity in the impugned order rejecting the petitioners' objections. This revision petition being absolutely frivolous and a gross abuse of the process of the Court is dismissed with costs of? 40,000.
C.R.P. 69/2010 p(,g^ 2of2 kv.
P.K. BHASIN,J SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 nk 2011:DHC:9183