DILBAG SINGH Vs. CHIRANJI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision, arises out of an unfortunate litigation between the father and the son going on for years. Chiranji Lal, father of the judgment-debtor Dilbag Singh, had obtained a decree by filing an ejectment petition in February, 1988. The decree for ejectment was passed on 12. 3. 1992 against the judgment-debtor. On 22. 3. 1992 after the lapse of 5 years, the decree-holder filed an execution petition seeking warrant of possession in regard to the property in dispute which is stated to be one room and some adjacent area in possession of the judgment-debtor. Objections in the execution were filed by Dilbag Singh stating therein that decree dated 12. 3. 1992 stands satisfied and completely waived the stand substituted by a family Settlement executed between the decree-holder and the judgment debtor on December 18, 1992. On the strength of this family settlement, the judgment-debtor prayed for protection of his possession on the property in dispute. The plea of waiver/estoppel was also taken against the decree-holder. The learned trial court after hearing the parties but without recording any evidence by way of an affidavit or otherwise rejected the objections on the ground that executing Court has only to execute the decree as it stands and subsequent events would be irrelevant unless the decree rendered a nullity. It is this order of the learned executing Court dated 17. 1. 1998 which has been assailed in the present revision.

(2.) AT the outset, the photocopy of the alleged family settlement dated 18. 12. 1992 was filed on record. It was also stated that the original of the settlement is in possession of the decree-holder. The photocopy of this document which has also been placed on the record of this petition shows that the family settlement was executed between the parties and it is signed by five witnesses of the village. Reference to the execution of this family settlement has been made in detail in para-2 of the objection petition dated 35. 9. 1997. In reply to para-2 of this objection petition, the decree holder though has disputed the contents but has clearly admitted that the papers were got signed from him by the judgment-debtor on a blank stamp paper. He also admits that the stamp paper was signed by him for the purpose of submitting it to the electricity Department as the defendant was user of a Chakki and Gandasa in the said room.

(3.) AT this stage, it may be relevant to make a reference to a decision of this Court where after detailed discussion it was held by the Court that the objections filed by the judgment debtor arc bona fide, based upon proper documentation must be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Order 21. In some cases, it may be appropriate for the Court to dispose of the objections summarily and order accordingly but certainly in some other cases it may require determination upon giving opportunity even to lead evidence to the parties effected. The relevant observations in case of 'rocky Tyres and Ors. v. Ajit Jain and Ors. are :