Pinoo Dutta v. Ram Bhasin

1. A Court notice was issued to the parties and the learned counsel for the respondent was served. However, none appeared. Respondent is also reported to have died in 1993. Nobody had appeared on behalf of appellant today despite the matter having been listed.

2. This is an execution appeal filed in the year 1989 almost 27 years back. The appeal could have been dismissed for non-prosecution. However, I feel that without dismissing the appeal on the ground of 2016:DHC:2882 non-prosecution, it would be better to go through the impugned order and decide the same on merit.

3. I have gone through the impugned order.

4. The appeal was filed against the order dated 13.01.1988 passed by Lokeshwar Prasad, the then Additional District Judge, Delhi rejecting the objections of the appellant under Order 21 Rule 58 read with Section 47 and 151 of the CPC filed against the attachment of moveable property of judgment debtor who was husband of the appellant/objector pursuant to a decree obtained by the respondent. The respondent (deceased)/decree holder had obtained a decree and filed the execution application pursuant to which following items were attached by the bailiff on 17.12.1986:- “(i) One car bearing No.DHE-94 make Fiat.

(ii) One scooter make Vespa bearing No.DHM 433

(iii) One Fridge make Alwin-capacity 165 Ltrs.

(iv) One coloured T.V. make Bush.

(v) One music system.

(vi) One sofa and a carpet.

(vii) One portable bar.

(viii) Encyclopaedia of Britanica (set of 30 volumes).”

5. The appellant stated in her objections that the aforesaid items which were attached belonged to her and she was the owner thereof. The reply to the application was filed by the judgment debtor/respondent that the appellant/objector did not raise any such objection either at the time of attachment of or on superdari. Thereafter, appellant filed her rejoinder reiterating the facts mentioned in objection. Issue was framed on 03.07.1987 and the objector entered into witness box and testified in support of her objections. The respondent (deceased)/decree holder examined himself and the bailiff in support of his case in respect of attachment.

6. The learned ADJ at the time of dismissal of the objections has observed that so far as the car is concerned she has not claimed the ownership nor any document was produced. With regard to the scooter also nothing was mentioned by her in her statement. As regards the remaining items of which she had claimed the ownership although she had averred that she had purchased them on instalment but no documentary evidence showing that the same were purchased on instalment was adduced. No shopkeeper from whom such items were purportedly purchased was also examined. On the top of it, the learned ADJ observed that this plea of the objector that the aforesaid items belonging to her were actually an afterthought because she was an educated lady and at the relevant time working as a teacher in Delhi Public School. She did not raise any such objection at the time of attachment and at the time of release of the articles on superdari. Therefore, these facts weighed with the learned ADJ who accordingly dismissed the objections deciding the same in favour of the present respondent/decree holder.

7. I do not find that there was anything illegal, wrong, improper or erroneous in interpretation arrived at by the learned ADJ in concluding that the items did not belong to the appellant/objector. This is filing of such objections is human nature which is evident from the contemporaneous conduct of the appellant/objector. In case the items which were attached to the appellant/objector then at the very stroke of issuance of warrants of attachment, she would have taken an objection that these items belong to her as she was an educated lady and yet this objection was not taken either at the time of issue of warrants or on attachment, therefore, the only adverse inference which could be drawn against her is that the objections filed by her were actuated by an afterthought.

8. I do not find any merit in the appeal; accordingly the same is dismissed.