Executing Court Can't Go Behind Decree & Give Relief To Judgment Debtor That Was Expressly Denied To Him: Delhi High Court Reiterates
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree that is to be executed and give relief to the judgment debtor that was expressly denied to him. Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with a revision petition challenging the order dated 04.04.2022 passed by the Additional Rent Controller whereby the objection petition filed by the Petitioner under sec....
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree that is to be executed and give relief to the judgment debtor that was expressly denied to him.
Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with a revision petition challenging the order dated 04.04.2022 passed by the Additional Rent Controller whereby the objection petition filed by the Petitioner under sec. 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the eviction order passed as well as an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the objection petition, was dismissed.
A suit for eviction was filed by the Respondents regarding a property claiming themselves to be the owners of the said property which they purchased from the previous owners by way of sale deed dated 09.09.1987.
The eviction petition was filed by the Respondents on the ground that the Respondent No.1 wanted to start a boutique on the property with the help of her daughter, Respondent No.2. It was stated in the eviction petition that the financial condition of the Respondent No.1 was not strong and they required the property in question to run a business to make their ends meet.
An application for leave to defend was filed by the Petitioner. In the said application, it was stated that he was not a tenant in the premises in question but the owner of the said property. It was further stated that the Respondents had no right, title or interest over the premises in question, and that the premises in question was in possession of the father of the Petitioner since 1958 and after the death of the Petitioner's father, the Petitioner herein remained in exclusive and uninterrupted possession of the property in question.
The said leave to defend application was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller. The Petitioner had then filed a revision petition before High Court which was rejected on 23.09.2019.
The Petitioner then approached the Apex Court by which was dismissed as withdrawn vide with liberty to pursue all such remedies as available in law to the Petitioner.
During execution, the Petitioner chose to file an objection petition. Later an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment to the objection petition was also filed by the Petitioner. Vide order dated 04.04.2022, the Additional Rent Controller dismissed the objection petition and also dismissed the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the objection petition.
It was thus argued on behalf of the petitioner that the ARC erred in dismissing the application simply on the ground that the issue had been settled in the previous proceedings and that the question as to whether the Respondent was the owner of the property in question or not had to be decided in the objection petition filed by the Petitioner.
"A perusal of the order dated 04.05.2017, passed by the learned ARC, dismissing the application for leave to defend filed by the Petitioner, shows that all the grievances sought to be agitated by the Petitioner in the objection petition were agitated before the learned ARC who had not agreed with the submissions made by the Petitioner," the Court said.
It added "It is trite law that an executing Court cannot go behind the decree that is to be executed and give relief to the judgment debtor that was expressly denied to him [refer: Bhawarlal Bhandari v. Universal Heavy Mechanical Shifting Enterprise, (1999) 1 SCC 558]."
The Court noted that after the issue pertaining to whether the Petitioner was the owner of the property in question or not was crystallized, the Petitioner was once again raking up the same issue which had attained finality.
"The argument of the Petitioner that he and his father were the owners of the property in question has attained finality in the Eviction Petition and the same has been confirmed by this Court in the Revision petition filed by the Petitioner. Furthermore, and the SLP filed against that order has failed. The Petitioner wants to contend that the sale deed did not convey any right, title or interest to the Respondents as the erstwhile owners were not in possession of the area in occupation of the Respondents. This amounts to re-agitating the case once-again. The Petitioner cannot now agitate the very same issue in the Execution Petition," the Court said.
The Court further noted that the contention of the Petitioner that the Respondents were not the owners of the property in question was rejected and that the issue cannot be permitted to be reopened in the execution petition by the very same person who had lost in the substantive petitions.
"It, therefore, cannot be said that the Petitioner has an independent right on the premises in question as the same has been determined by the learned ARC as well as this Court," it added.
Calling the petition nothing but an abuse of the process of law, the Court was of the view that the judgment of the ARC did not suffer from any infirmity requiring interference from High Court.
"This Court was inclined to impose costs on the Petitioner for filing this frivolous petition but considering the fact that the learned ARC has already imposed a cost of Rs.5,000/- on the Petitioner, this Court is refraining itself from imposing further costs," the Court said at the outset.
Accordingly, the plea was dismissed.
Case Title: RAMESH KUMAR BANGA v. KAILASH MAKKAR AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 386