SHIPPI DEVI Vs. LAJA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff/decree holder/respondent herein holds a decree for specific performance qua the suit property. The decree aforesaid as held extantly by the decree holder as put to execution at her instance before the learned Executing Court has secured affirmation in concurrence from the First Appellate Court besides from this Court in a Regular Second Appeal instituted at the instance of the defendant/judgment debtor. Given the conclusivity of the decree of specific performance held by the plaintiff/decree holder it warranted its begetting satisfaction by the learned Executing Court in the manner as mandated in its order as stands impugned before this Court.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the judgment debtor/defendant/petitioner herein has strived to contend of the decree put to execution at the instance of the plaintiff/decree holder before the Executing Court suffering from an infirmity arising form its standing anvilled upon a purported agreement to sell which stood obtained by the plaintiff/decree holder by hers perpetrating fraud upon the defendant/judgment debtor/petitioner herein. He contends of hence the decree as put in execution being a nullity. Also he obviously makes a vociferous address before this Court of the order of the learned Executing Court impugned before this Court whereby it dismissed the objection embodying the factum of the decree as put to execution by the decree holder before the learned Executing Court arising from the conclusive concurrently recorded decrees upto the High Court standing anchored upon an agreement to sell purportedly executed inter se the decree holder and the judgment debtors, the apposite agreement when stands stained with a vice of its purported execution arising from a fraud practiced upon the judgment debtor by the decree holder renders it to acquire no force besides hence it being unexecutable.

(3.) In aftermath, the learned Executing Court was enjoined to execute the decree laid for execution by the decree holder before it. Since, the aforesaid objections impinging upon the validity of the decree put to execution before the Executing Court stood tacitly concerted earlier before this Court by the judgment debtor whereat they yielded no fruitful consequences, hers reinvented endeavour before the learned Executing Court warrants as aptly done by the learned Executing Court to suffer rejection. The learned Executing Court rather would have fallen in gross error in case it accepted the objections constituted before it by the judgment debtor besides it would thereupon have proceeded to untenably go behind the decree which endeavour on its part would have obviously sequelled its overriding the mandate of Section 47 of the CPC whereby it stood enjoined to put to execution the conclusive concurrently recorded decrees upto to the High Court in favour of the plaintiff/decree holder. Contrarily, the mandate of Section 47 of the CPC when stands complied with by the learned Executing Court obviously, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity.