Civil Revision No.2851 of 2009 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.2851 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : May 18, 2009 Suresh s/o Rugga @ Raghunath ... Petitioner VERSUS Ram narain s/o Chhalu Ram and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.4.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Narnaul, dismissing the appeal of Suresh – petitioner/objector (herein referred as `the petitioner') against the order dated 14.3.2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul in Execution Petition No.44 of 1999-2000, vide which the objections filed by the petitioner to grant interim stay of the Execution Petition, on the basis of the objections was declined. The Trial Court had altogether declined the objection petition holding that the petitioner should have voluntarily removed the encroachment over the passage comprised in Khasra No.295. Factual background of the case is that Ram Narain – decree- Civil Revision No.2851 of 2009 [ 2 ] holder/ respondent No.1 (herein referred as `the decree-holder') filed a civil suit seeking a decree for injunction against Ved Parkash, Ghisa Ram, Molu and Smt.Saraswati on 4.8.1990 directing them to remove the illegal encroachment over the passage comprised in Khasra No.295. The said suit was decreed on 6.9.1997 and the judgment and the decree also attained finality. However, the encroachers did not remove the illegal encroachment from the said passage. During Execution, warrant of demolition could not be executed, therefore, police help had to be provided. At this, the petitioner, who was not a party to the suit filed an objection petition stating that he has stepped into the shoes of Smt.Saraswati after her death. He claimed that he having received the disputed property during family partition dated 31.3.1987 after her death is in possession of the same and has been using it as `Guwara' after raising boundary wall. The decree-holder obtained the decree with the connivance of the other judgment-debtors. As such, the said decree is not binding upon him. The executing court dismissed the objection petition, so as the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. The parties are not at variance with regard to the factual position. The petitioner being legal representative of Smt.Saraswati and having stepped into her shoes, has become the judgment debtor, as such, he is bound by the decree. As regards the alleged family partition dated 31.3.1987, it appears that the same is a fictitious document. The petitioner appears to have filed the present objection petition in connivance with his other family members, in order to avoid the execution of the decree passed Civil Revision No.2851 of 2009 [ 3 ] against them. The petitioner on 6.6.2003 filed a suit for injunction, which was got dismissed in default by him on 1.11.2005. Thereafter, he had also filed the similar objections on 12.3.2007, obviously, in order to delay and hamper the execution proceedings. Such objections being superfluous need not be dealt with like a trial. The objections which are found to be superfluous could be decided summarily. In this regard, support could be gathered from the following cases:- 1) Usha Devi vs. Parshadi Lal u, 1998(4) RCR(Civil) 644, wherein, it was observed that need of framing of issues would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it is not incumbent upon the existing court that it must put to trial every objection filed in execution proceedings may be frivolous, vexatious and delay causing objection can be summarily decided. 2) Som Parkash vs. Santosh Ram , 1991(1) PLR 89, wherein, it was observed that adjudication of objections does not mean that framing of issues is always necessary for the executing court and the term adjudication as used in rules does not start and with the framing of issues, but it required appreciation of the case of the objector and documents in support of such objections. 3) Charanjeet Singh vs. Manmohan Singh ,1989 CCC 190 (P&H), wherein, it was observed as under:- “To my mind, there is no need to frame issue and to give an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence because the facts Civil Revision No.2851 of 2009 [ 4 ] are very much clear. There is an attempt on the part of objector to prolong the already protracted litigation further into infinity. The decree-holders are trying to execute the decree in their favour for the last 21 years.” 4) Kazi Akeel Ahmed vs. Ibrahim and another , 1996(2) RRR 461, wherein, it was observed as under:- “It is true that when an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code is made, it contemplates an investigation into the claim made in the application, in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 98 and the rules the following thereafter. But in the special facts and circumstances of the present case, we see no reason to hold an enquiry or investigation as the same would be a futile exercise in view of the fact that civil suit instituted by respondent No.2 making the same claim as has been made by him and his application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC has been dismissed by the civil court.” 5) Bikram Singh vs. Surjit Singh , 2004(4) RCR(Civil) 422, wherein, the Court observed as under:- “it is the duty of the executing court to execute the decree and merely because frivolous and vexatious objections are filed with the view to delay and defeat the execution of decree, it is not necessary that court must frame issues and grant opportunity to the parties to lead evidence.” Civil Revision No.2851 of 2009 [ 5 ] It is often seen that the property grabbers, tax evaders and bank loan dodgers and other law breakers normally make misuse of the process of law by filing the baseless and superfluous objections and by giving twist to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, stress upon to prolong the executions and make bounty out of these delays, which should be discouraged. On account of non-implementation or non-execution of the decree, the majesty of the courts is diminished and the enforceable orders turn into waster papers. As such, the Courts should, with a view to see that there should finality of litigation, enforce the orders, while discouraging the useless, baseless and unsustainable objections. Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in case SP Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs vs. J agannath (dead) by LRs and others , AIR 1994 Supreme Court 853, wherein, it was observed 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 hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, 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 Civil Revision No.2851 of 2009 [ 6 ] litigation.” The crux of the aforesaid judgments is that the superfluous objections need not be dealt with like a trial and the same should be thrown away summarily. As such, finding no illegality, much less any irregularity in the impugned order, the instant petition is dismissed. May 18, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE