JAIRAJ NAMDEORAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is what judgment debtor wants this court to believe to achieve his goal to frustrate execution of decree. The endeavor of judgment debtor, is to frustrate execution proceedings of a decree of specific performance, which has been confirmed up to the Supreme Court by making ingenious attempt to drag the employees of the Court. This is yet another case, which confirms the general feeling that the real trouble starts after obtaining a decree and when it is put to execution. The Courts in this country have taken judicial notice of the tendency of the judgment debtors that far too many obstacles are placed in the way of decree holder, who seeks to execute his decree against the property of judgment debtor. The Privy Council in General Manager of the Raj Durbhungah V. Vs. Maharaja Coomar Ramaput Singh (1871-72) 14 MIA 605, had observed that the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree. This was reiterated in 1925, by the Privy Council in Kuer Jang Bahadur Vs. Bank of Upper India Ltd. AIR 1925 Oudh 448 (PC), where the Court observed that "Courts in India have to be careful to see that the process of the Court and the law of procedure are not abused by judgment debtors in such a way as to make Courts of law instrumental in defrauding creditors, who have obtained decrees in accordance with their rights ".

(2.) The facts relevant for the adjudication of the present Petition in nutshell are as under :

(3.) It is the case of the respondents No.6 to 8 that the respondents on 16/4/2008 filed Misc. Judicial Applications No. 179/2008, 180/2008 and 181/2008, seeking extension of time of 10 days to deposit the amount. The learned Presiding Officer issued notice to the judgment debtor i.e. the predecessor-in-title of respondent No.4 herein. The predecessor of respondent No.4 moved application seeking permission to cross-examine respondents No.6 to 8. Learned Presiding Officer permitted the predecessor of respondent No.4 to cross-examine the respondents No.6 to 8 in detail. The learned Presiding Officer allowed Misc. Judicial Applications No. 179/2008, 180/2008 and 181/2008 by order dtd. 28/01/2009 on merit, granting extension of time to deposit balance consideration by observing that the respondents No.6 to 8 have already deposited balance consideration amount on 10/04/2008. It is undisputed that the order dtd. 28/01/2009 permitting the respondents No.6 to 8 has attained finality as the said order has not been challenged by either predecessor-in-title of respondent No.4 or respondent No.4 himself. The decree passed in Civil Suit dtd. 30/01/2008 has also attained finality up to the Supreme Court.