In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CM No. 21845-CII of 2009 and Civil Revision No. 5032 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: November 04, 2009 Sunita Rani Chaurasia .. Petitioner Vs. Mohinder Kaur and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. D.S. Bali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Sunil Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J Sunita Rani daughter-in-law of the judgment debtor has preferred the revision petition against the order dated 8.8.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, dismissing the appeal against the order dated 14.2.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ambala Cantt. dismissing the objection petition in the execution qua the order of ejectment dated 18.8.1981 passed by the Rent Controller, Ambala. The facts in the background of the case are that an ex-parte ejectment order was passed on 18.8.1981 in favour of Anand Dass Predecessor-in-interest of the respondents-decree holders (herein referred as 'the respondents No.1 to 5') against Ram Kishan by the Rent Controller, Ambala. The application preferred by Ram Kishan for setting aside the ex parte order was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Ambala on 27.10.1987, thereafter the decree holder preferred the execution in the year 1987, wherein the present petitioner filed the objection petition on 4.5.1996 claiming that Binda Parshad son of Ori Lal being the original owner had bequeathed the house in her favour vide Will dated 31.12.1968 executed at Meerut while he was residing at Hapur (U.P.) with the brother of the petitioner. Binda Parshad died on 9.1.1970. The petitioner came to know about the Will in the year 1987, thereafter, the petitioner filed a civil suit in Civil Revision No. 5032 of 2007 -2- *** the year 1987 challenging the impugned order which was ultimately withdrawn by her. However, Ram Kishan had no title over the property as he had sold the same in favour of Anand Dass which was illegal null and void. Since the petitioner is in possession of the suit property in her own right being the owner on the basis of the Will executed by Binda Parshad, therefore, the decree passed by the Rent Controller, Ambala in favour of Anand Dass and now inherited by the petitioner was not enforceable. The said petition was resisted by the respondents No.1 to 5 wherein they denied all the allegations and pleaded that the property was owned by Ram Kishan on the basis of the partition between him and one Mool Chand. Ram Kishan had sold the same to Anand Dass vide sale deed dated 4.8.1977. Ram Kishan was inducted as tenant as such Anand Dass had to file an eviction petition which was allowed on 18.8.1981. Earlier, Ram Kishan had been dealing with the execution and now on her death the petitioner being his daughter in law is frustrating the Will which never saw the light of the day since 1968 till 1989 i.e. for 21 years. The civil suit No.262 of 1984/1990 filed on behalf of the minor son Vikas for setting aside the sale deed dated 4.8.1977 in favour of Anand Dass was got dismissed as withdrawn on 25.7.1994. Thus no objection petition was maintainable. Both the courts below declined to accept the plea set up by the petitioner with the observations that the objection petition being fraudulent and vexatious was filed just to delay the execution petition. There was no requirement to frame issues and decide the matter afresh after inviting evidence of the parties. The same being vexatious and frivolous could be decided summarily. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, it may be observed that the petitioner is none else but the daughter in law of the judgment debtor Ram Kishan. The petitioner claiming herself to be the owner of the property on the basis of the unregistered Will which did not see the light of the day for more than 20 years has preferred the objection petition. The petitioner had earlier challenged the sale deed in favour of Ram Kishan in the year 1987. Ultimately the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn without seeking Civil Revision No. 5032 of 2007 -3- *** permission to file fresh one. Any way, eviction proceedings had started earlier to the year 1981 and the application for ejectment was allowed in the year 1981, but since 1981 till 1996, no such objection petition was preferred by the petitioner claiming her right over the property. Though, she was fully alive of the ejectment proceedings going on in the courts. Earlier, she tried to frustrate the valid order of ejectment by filing a suit which was ultimately withdrawn by her on 25.7.1994. The Will which is made the basis of the title of the petitioner being unregistered could be prepared at any time to frustrate the valid order ejectment passed by the court. The intention and scheme of the legislature is not to entertain and to adjudicate the frivolous and vexatious objections file a civil suit but could be given due consideration at the disposal thereof and there is no bar to dispose of such objections summarily. The sale deed on the basis of which Anand Dass had claimed title had not so far been set aside by any court of law. The petitioner being in possession of the house knew fully well about the sale deed and she never challenged the same for nine years, therefore, certainly the objections could be said to be frivolous. As regards the possession of the petitioner, there is no dispute with the fact that she is in possession of the house in dispute regarding which an ejectment order has been passed against her father-in-law. Thus, she cannot be termed in legal possession on the basis of the title, but she could be said to be in possession of the house after the death of the judgment debtor and she could easily be ejected pursuant to the order passed by the Executing Court. The records further reveal that when Ram Kishan judgment debtor (since deceased) failed on all the fronts then the petitioner came with the instant objection petition in order to frustrate the execution of the order dated 18.8.1981. The record further highlights that the judgment debtor or the present petitioner had been successful in frustrating the legal order being enforced for the last 26 years. Much stress has been laid by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that both the courts in fact fell in error while deciding the objections summarily, as it was obligatory on the part of the court to decide and adjudicate the legitimate right of the petitioner while framing issues and after recording evidence. Civil Revision No. 5032 of 2007 -4- *** Having pondered over the arguments, it may be reiterated that once the objections are found frivolous and have been filed with an intention to frustrate the decree, then it was not obligatory on the part of the court to frame issues but could decide such objections summarily. It was observed in case Rocky Tyres vs. Ajit Jain, 1998 (3) CCC 313, wherein it was observed that it was not incumbent upon the executing court that it must put to trial every objections which are filed in execution proceeding even if prima facie they appear to be frivolous, vexatious and only intended to delay the execution and frustrate the procedure of law where it amounts to an abuse of process of the court. Again it was observed in case Som Parkash vs. Santosh Rani AIR 1997 Punjab & Haryana 130 that the court is not obliged in every case to frame issue and what is necessary is appreciation of case of objector and documents in support of the objections. The Executing Court as well as the Appellate Court after due consideration of the objection petition and the documents placed on record in support of the petition disposed of the petition while holding that the same was frivolous and vexatious. Finding no grounds to interfere, the petition is hereby dismissed. November 04, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge