1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 8.11.2005 passed by Civil Judge, Delhi and the order dated 19.12.2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi, in the execution proceedings. I have heard Mr. R.S. Endlaw, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjeev Anand, learned Counsel for respondents/caveators, on the point of admission, and have gone through the impugned order and the judgment and copies of the documents placed on the file.
2. Briefly the facts are that the predecessor of respondent No. 1 herein filed a suit against respondent No. 2 herein, Sarvan Singh, father of the objector (petitioner herein) for directing respondent No. 2, Sarvan Singh, father, who is alive, to hand over the possession, demolish unauthorized construction made by him and further for restraining him (father of objector) from making any further construction in future. The said suit was decreed on 21.2.1989. Respondent No. 2 (father of objector/petitioner herein) filed an appeal which was dismissed on 3.9.1991, then he filed Regular Second Appeal which also was dismissed on 16.12.1991. Thereafter, the decree holder filed an application for execution of the decree.
3. It appears that the judgment debtor did not raise any objections but his son, the petitioner herein, raised objections under Section 47 read with order 21 Rule 97 to 107 alleging that the decree holder had changed his name, the application for execution was barred by time, the objector was residing in a different premises belonging to one Tej Pratap Singh, the land underneath the premises has been leased by the L and DO and that the site plan of the property is not filed.
4. In the reply, preliminary objections were raised that the objector has no independent status in the suit property, therefore, he has no locus standi to file the objections, specially, when the judgment debtor is still alive. That the dispute about identity is self-contradictory and the decree holder was not going to execute the decree on the property of Tej Pratap Singh. It is stated by Decree Holder that there is no dispute about the identity of the property, the same is a portion of Property No. 124, Janpath Lane known as Shanti Niwas and is not a portion of Windsor Mansion (as alleged by the objector).
Moreover, the objector was in possession through his father and has to be ejected in execution of the decree. It is submitted that the decree holder is the same entity who had filed the suit, only the name has changed from Gangeshwar Limited to Trivani Engineering and Industries Limited pursuant to a special resolution under Section 21 of the Company Act and after approval of the Central Government vide order dated 31.3.2000. A fresh certificate of incorporation of the change of name has been issued by the authorities and this has been mentioned in para ‘b’ of the execution application. It is also mentioned in the application that the decree holder does not have the site plan of the suit property but there is only one property of the decree holder which is in possession of the judgment debtor. It has been submitted that the original file was destroyed in the District Court in a fire in the record room. The suit property is stated to be on a piece of land measuring 10’ x 10’ (sic) in one corner behind a garage.
5. The chequered history of this case shows how a judgment debtor or his son can prolong the matter for about three decades and the decree holder is not allowed to reap the fruits of the decree in its favour despite the appellate Courts (including the High Court qua judgment debtor) having dismissed the contentions firstly of the judgment debtor and then of his son-objector. After having failed in their repeated efforts to delay the delivery of possession, the judgment debtor and his son also appear to have taken the help of the owner of adjoining building namely. Tej Pratap Singh to file a suit not only against the decree holder but against the objector (petitioner herein) as well obviously, to start the 5th round of litigation.
6. I have gone through the order dated 11.5.2004 passed by the execution Court. It is apparent from the said order that when arguments on the objections were being heard, both the parties agreed that it will be convenient if an independent person from L and DO is appointed to demarcate the suit property and execute the decree. So accordingly, the learned Civil Judge directed the Land and Development Office, Ministry of Rural Development, to depute an officer to demarcate the suit property and identify the same and also appointed an Ms. Nisha Gautam, Advocate as local commissioner for execution of the decree and then warrants of possessions were issued.
7. The Local Commissioner submitted her report to the effect that suit property was found to be 47’-9’ (sic.) in total out of which 43' 0" (sic.) was the leased portion of the lane and 4'-9" (sic.) was the service lane area which was unauthorizedly occupied. Part of land i.e., 4'-8" (sic.) belonged to decree holder and rest i.e. 4'- 9" (sic.) was Government land. A shop was existing on the entire land. Above that also there was constructed portion. Though the judgment debtor admitted that some portion belonged to the decree holder but he refused to give possession. In my view this was prima facie contempt of the Court. This report was submitted on 28.8.2004 .
8. Thereafter the objector moved an application under Section 151, CPC on 13.9.2004 praying that warrants of possession be not issued. The learned Civil Judge opined that a consent order was passed on 11.5.2004 appointing a local commissioner besides an officer of the L&DO to identify the property and the objector was in a way seeking review of the said consent order and the execution Court also referred to order dated 3.9.2004 in which the execution Court has dealt with the report of the local commissioner and observed how the objector was trying to back out from the consent and raised objections repeatedly on one or another pretext to compel the execution Court to go behind the decree, whereas no such objections were taken by the JD even before the higher Courts. The execution Court, therefore, again issued warrants of possession and sought report for 17.9.2004 It seems thereafter the appeal against the execution Court order was filed, which has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 19.12.2005 and now this civil revision petition.
9. I have also gone through the order of the Appellate Court. The learned Additional District Judge has once again dealt with all the objections which were raised before the execution Court like the bar of limitation, the identify of the property, the consent order, the second order dated 3.9.2004, vide which contentions of the objector were dismissed by the learned Civil Judge and also referred to the report of Local Commissioner and finally dismissed the appeal.
10. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the execution application was barred by time has no force because practically and in effect it was a suit for possession. The matter regarding the identity has been very aptly dealt with by the Courts below. I am of the view that the objector who is son of the judgment debtor has no locus standi at all to file the objections. He neither had any tenancy right nor was he a licensee. Even a tenant or a licensee cannot challenge the title of the landlord (Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act). If the decree includes the Government land or public passage, the Government authorities will protect their property but the judgment debtor or his son (objector) have no legal right or title in any part of the property. Therefore, they must vacate.
11. In my view, this father and son duo have made a mockery of law and have prolonged the litigation for about three decades because they are in unlawful possession. In fact objector was a total stranger and had started delaying the matter after his father lost the case up to the High Court. All this shows that the objector and the judgment debtor were indulging in delaying tactics based on falsehood and fraud. They have been trying to mislead the trial Court, appellate Court and the execution Court. It appears that the Courts have been very lenient to the judgment debtor and the objector and that is why the objector has dared to file this mala fide, vexatious and frivolous civil revision petition. In a rather similar case in which a father and son were delaying delivery of possession, titled T. Arivandandam V.T. v. Satpal, reported in 1978 Rajdhani Law Reporter (SC) 21, the Supreme Court of India opined as under:
'........ The long arm of the law must throttle such litigative caricatures if the confidence and credibility of the community and if the judicature is to survive. The contempt power of the Court is meant for such persons as the present petitioner.........'
12. In another matter relating to prolongation of litigation by devious means, the Supreme Court of India in the matter titled S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs v. Jagannath (dead) by LRs and Ors., reported in II (1993) BC 546 (SC)=AIR 1994 SC 853, opined as under:
'The principle of ‘finality of litigation’ cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean h
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the Court is being abused. Property-ghabbers, tax-evaders, bank loan dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the Court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.' Considering all the facts and circumstances, I do not find it a fit case for interference under Section 115 of the CPC. The execution Court is directed to expedite execution, provide police aid to the Court Commissioner or bailiff and oust the judgment debtor and his son (objector) from the unlawful possession and restore possession to the decree holder within seven days. The petition being mala fide, vexatious and frivolous is dismissed with Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) as costs against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents. Copy of this order be sent to the execution Court.