ABDUL SHAKUR Vs. PURUSHHOTTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on the question of admission.

(2.) The facts of the case are that on the basis of a compromise having been arrived at between the plaintiff and defendant, civil suit pending between them was disposed off by judgment and decree dtd. 24/4/2007. As per the compromise decree, defendant had to deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiff by 21/4/2011. Thereafter, plaintiff sold the suit property to one Smt. Rashida Bee by a registered sale-deed in the year 2008.

(3.) In those proceedings, an objection was filed by the judgment debtor under Sec. 47 of the CPC submitting that Hatim Kanchwala does not have any right to file the execution proceedings since the same is not in conformity with the provisions of Order 21 Rule 16 and Sec. 146 of the CPC. It has not been proved that there was any valid authorization by the decree holder in favor of Hatim Kanchwala to file the execution. Without permission of the Court and without giving opportunity of hearing to the objector, the execution could not have been filed. The execution proceedings hence deserve to be dismissed. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Vaishno Devi Construction Rep. Thr. Sole Proprietor (D) Thr. Lrs and Another Vs. Union of Inida and Others, AIR 2021 SC 5309.