DHANNA LAL GUPTA Vs. PREM LATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. The appellant challenges the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Court No. 3, Shimla dismissing the application under Order 21 Rules 97 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed on behalf of the objector -Dhana Lal Gupta (petitioner herein). The Court holds that after considering the case of the parties and going through the record, the objector has no locus standi to raise any objection with regard to the identity of the suit premises which is clearly defined in the decree and judgment passed by the Court and confirmed by the learned appellate Court. The Court also holds that the objection petition is barred by the principle of lis pendens under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act. What has been submitted before me is that it was not open to the learned trial Court to have dismissed the objection petition summarily without framing an issue. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Rajeev Dutta and others Vs. Punjab Wakf Board and another, : 2002 (3) Shim. L.C. 315. This Court, while following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajiv Trust and another, : (1998) 3 SCC 723 and Shreenath and another Vs. Rajesh and others, : AIR 1998 S.C. 1827, holds:

(2.) IT is also submitted that this principle of law has been followed by this Court in M/s Anupam Coffee House Kandaghat and another, : 2004 (2) Shim. L.C. 367. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that such a course is not required to be followed by the Court on the facts of the present case as the documentary evidence on record is absolutely clear that the objections had been raised merely as a ruse to delay the execution of the decree.

(3.) ON the question raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the judgment debtor deliberately seeks to avoid the execution of decree, all that I need say is that it has been settled by the Supreme Court in a number of decisions that a decree holder cannot be deprived of the fruits of the decree and that frivolous litigation/abuse of the process of law needs to be curbed with heavy exemplary costs.