SANTOSH SINGH Vs. AMAR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel contends that the trial Court has just dismissed the objections raised by the petitioner without framing any issues and without giving opportunity to the objector to prove that execution petition was beyond limitation and Satnam Singh and Ajmer Singh had no right to file the same. In support, the learned Counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in Woolways, Chandigarh and Ors. v. Central Bank of India, Chandigarh and Ors. (1989-2) 96 P.L.R. 559.

(2.) In the present case, the decree-holders have alleged that after purchasing the suit property in 1989, they have stepped into the shoes of the plaintiff. However, there is nothing on record whether the sale deed was actually executed in their favour or they stepped into the shoes of the original owner. Under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, all the objections relating to execution of a decree have to be decided by the executing Court. Although it is not incumbent on the executing court to frame issue unnecessarily and try the objection petition as a suit, but at the same time, if objector raises some disputed question and wants to lead evidence, then executing Court should allow an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective case. In the present case, the objectors have categorically stated that suit was filed by Subedar Surat Singh on behalf of the original owners as their general attorney. He died before filing the execution petition. It is stated that sale deed, if any, in favour of Satnam Singh and Ajmer Singh is a fictitious, forged and void document. In such circumstances, an opportunity should have been afforded to prove the averments made by the objector in his objection petition and objections should not have been dismissed summarily.