HUKAM CHAND Vs. SANTOSH KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of S.A.O. Nos. 29, 30 and 31 of 1982 as the question involved is the same in all the three cases. On 3rd February, 1969 the decree -holder Hukam Chand moved the trial Court for execution of the final decree passed in his favour. Thereafter, the judgment -debtor and other persons filed objections mainly on the ground that the decree was vague and incapable of execution. Those objections were accepted by the executing court as well as by the First Court of appeal. Ultimately, the nutter came up in this Court in Execution Second Appeal No. 1592 of 1975, which was decided on 5th December, 1979. The appeal of the decree holder was accepted and consequently the objection petition was dismissed and the case was sent back to the executing court for proceeding further in accordance with law. On remand three objections, i.e., Santosh Kumari, Nirmal Rani and Sai Dass filed objections. The main allegations in the objection petition were that they were not parties to the decree and, therefore, it could not be executed against them. In any case they were bona -fide purchasers with no notice of previous litigation. These objections were contested on behalf of the decree -holder. The executing court found that it was an admitted fact that objectors purchased the different portions of the suit property during the pendency of the suit and, therefore, the objections as such were not tenable and consequently dismissed the same. On appeal the learned District Judge took the view that the executing court should not have dismissed the objections in this perfunctory manner, even without calling the decree -holder to file reply to the various contentions raised by the objectors in their objection petitions. As a result of this, the order of the executing court dismissing the objection petition was set aside and the case was sent back to the trial Court to proceed further under Order 21, Rule 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Dissatisfied with the same the decree -holder has come up in appeal in this Court.

(2.) NO one is present on behalf of the objectors in this Court inspite of issuance of actual date notices. It has been found as a fact by both the courts below that all the three objectors purchased the property during the pendency of the litigation. Once it is so admitted then the transferees have no better right than their transferer. The objection petition filed by Bhairo Devi, dated 29th March, 1969 was ultimately dismissed by this Court in E.S.A. No. 1592 of 1975. The objection petition thus having been dismissed by this Court, the present objectors had no prima facie case to file fresh objections on the tame ground and, therefore, under these circumstances the executing court rightly dismissed their objections as not tenable. The view of the learned District Judge in third respect that the executing court should not have dismissed the objections summarily is not warranted by statute. If once the court comes to the conclusion that the objections petition is frivolous and has been filed with an intention to delay the execution proceedings, the same could certainly be dismissed summarily Moreover Older 21, Rule 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure further provides that nothing in Rules 98 and 100 shall apply to resistance or obstruction in execution of a decree for the possession of immovable property by a person to whom the judgment -debtor has transferred the property after the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed or to the dispossession of any person. Therefore, there was nothing wrong or illegal for the executing court in dismissing the objection petition summarily as not tenable From the record, it is quite evident that the objection petition was filed just to delay the execution proceedings. The decree was passed in the year 1967 and uptill today the same has not been allowed to be executed by the judgment -debtor and the subsequent transferees from him on one reason or the other. The objections filed on behalf of the judgment -debtor were already dismissed by this Court in Execution Second Appeal No. 1592 of 1975, decided on 5th December, 1979.