BALVEER KAUR Vs. RAJENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner- judgment-debtor, who has moved an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure raising objections against execution of the decree passed on compromise by the Court of Additional District Judge, Sri Karanpur in Civil Suit No. 5/1998, seeks to question the orders dated 20.10.2011 (Annex. 6 and Annex. 7) whereby the learned Executing Court has rejected the applications moved on her behalf, purportedly under Order VI Rule 17 and Order VII Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

(2.) THE relevant background aspects of the matter are that Shri Angrej Singh (since deceased and represented by the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 herein) had filed the civil suit aforesaid, claiming his rights in the land in question situated at Chak 37 RB, Tehsil Padampur, while joining the petitioner Balveer Kaur as defendant No. 1. In this suit, one Shri Pritam Singh was appearing as the. power of attorney holder of the petitioner-defendant No. 1; and a compromise was allegedly placed by the said power of attorney holder of the petitioner before the Trial Court on 03.11.2007. On the basis of such; compromise, the decree came to be passed in favour of the plaintiff. This decree having been put to execution, the petitioner filed her objections under Section 47 CPC. Though a copy of such objection petition has not been placed on record, however, as per the averments taken in this petition, the petitioner has alleged that the decree was a nullity for having been obtained by fraud; and that the compromise purportedly operates in relinquishment of her rights and such relinquishment could have been made only through a registered instrument. THEre appears another ground taken in the objection petition that the decree was a nullity for having been passed without challenging the validity of the order of the Minister concerned.

(3.) THE learned Executing Court, after referring to the stand of the parties and the cited decisions, has rejected the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC with the following observations:- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_2158_RAJLW3_2012Image1.jpg</IMG> <IMG>JUDGEMENT_2158_RAJLW3_2012Image2.jpg</IMG>