Ashok Bakshi v. Reecha Rani and Another Reecha Rani and
Case Details
(O&M) CR-6693-2025 (O&M) -1- - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR CR-6693-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 22.09.2025 Decided on : Ashok Bakshi ....Petitioner VERSUS Reecha Rani and Another Reecha Rani and ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE M
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sunil Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Present: Mr. Sunil Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. MANDEEP PANNU J. MANDEEP PANNU -.- 1. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of judgment debtor No.1 assailing the order India has been filed by the petitioner–judgment debtor No.1 assailing the order judgment debtor No.1 assailing the order India has been filed by the petitioner , whereby the objections dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned Executing Court , whereby the objections dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned Executing dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned Executing proceedings were dismissed. filed by him in execution proceedings were dismissed. filed by him in execution Brief Facts 2. The brief facts are that respondent– The brief facts are that respondent plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory –plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory JD No.1 and another defendant. After injunction against the present petitioner–JD No.1 and another defendant. After JD No.1 and another defendant. After injunction against the present petitioner appear and were proceeded filing of the written statement, the defendants failed to appear and were proceeded filing of the written statement, the defendants failed to filing of the written statement, the defendants failed to parte in favour of the plaintiff ex parte on 12.02.2020. The suit was decreed ex-parte in favour of the plaintiff ex parte on 12.02.2020. The suit was decreed ex ex parte on 12.02.2020. The suit was decreed ex vide judgment and decree dated 29.05.2020. vide judgment and decree dated 29.05.2020. 3. Thereafter, the decree holder filed an execution petition. The Thereafter, the decree holder filed an execution petition. The Thereafter, the decree holder filed an execution petition. The Thereafter, the decree holder filed an execution petition. The tion warrants from jail where he was petitioner, who was produced on production warrants from jail where he was tion warrants from jail where he was petitioner, who was produced on produc In his lodged in connection with a criminal case, filed objections in execution. In his lodged in connection with a criminal case, filed objections in execution. lodged in connection with a criminal case, filed objections in execution. objections, he pleaded that an FIR dated 05.02.2016 had been registered against objections, he pleaded that an FIR dated 05.02.2016 had been registered against objections, he pleaded that an FIR dated 05.02.2016 had been registered against objections, he pleaded that an FIR dated 05.02.2016 had been registered against rendered only in 2022. him, that he was declared proclaimed offender, and had surrendered only in 2022. him, that he was declared proclaimed offender, and had sur him, that he was declared proclaimed offender, and had sur TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-6693-2025 (O&M) -2- - During his period of abscondence, summons were allegedly received through During his period of abscondence, summons were allegedly received through During his period of abscondence, summons were allegedly received through During his period of abscondence, summons were allegedly received through defendant No.2 and his signatures were obtained on the written statement filed on defendant No.2 and his signatures were obtained on the written statement filed on defendant No.2 and his signatures were obtained on the written statement filed on defendant No.2 and his signatures were obtained on the written statement filed on gainst his behalf. He alleged that thereafter, being underground, he was proceeded against his behalf. He alleged that thereafter, being underground, he was proceeded a his behalf. He alleged that thereafter, being underground, he was proceeded a parte and the decree was passed against him. He contended that the decree ex-parte and the decree was passed against him. He contended that the decree parte and the decree was passed against him. He contended that the decree parte and the decree was passed against him. He contended that the decree and further pleaded that he was intending to file holder had misled the trial Court and further pleaded that he was intending to file and further pleaded that he was intending to file holder had misled the trial an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment ecree dated 29.05.2020. On these grounds, he prayed that the execution and decree dated 29.05.2020. On these grounds, he prayed that the execution ecree dated 29.05.2020. On these grounds, he prayed that the execution ecree dated 29.05.2020. On these grounds, he prayed that the execution petition be dismissed. petition be dismissed. 4. The decree holder denied the allegations. The learned Executing The decree holder denied the allegations. The learned Executing The decree holder denied the allegations. The learned Executing The decree holder denied the allegations. The learned Executing , by its order dated 11.09.2025, dismissed the objections holding that the Court, by its order dated 11.09.2025, dismissed the objections holding that the , by its order dated 11.09.2025, dismissed the objections holding that the , by its order dated 11.09.2025, dismissed the objections holding that the could not be entertained in execution, and there was no illegality in grounds urged could not be entertained in execution, and there was no illegality in could not be entertained in execution, and there was no illegality in could not be entertained in execution, and there was no illegality in the decree making it inexecutable. the decree making it inexecutable. Submissions of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Submissions of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Submissions of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the same pleas raised Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the same pleas raised Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the same pleas raised Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the same pleas raised before the Executing e submitted that the decree holder had acted with xecuting Court. He submitted that the decree holder had acted with e submitted that the decree holder had acted with mala fide intention to grab the property of the petitioner and mala fide intention to grab that the house in the property of the petitioner and that the house in dispute was purchased by all the parties though registered in the name of the dispute was purchased by all the parties though registered in the name of the dispute was purchased by all the parties though registered in the name of the dispute was purchased by all the parties though registered in the name of the decree holder owing to fiduciary relationship. decree holder owing to fiduciary relationship nly due to the registration of the . Only due to the registration of the FIR in February 2016, the petitioner remained underground and was declared FIR in February 2016, the petitioner remained underground and was declared FIR in February 2016, the petitioner remained underground and was declared FIR in February 2016, the petitioner remained underground and was declared proclaimed offender, resulting in his being proceeded ex parte. It was urged that proclaimed offender, resulting in his being proceeded ex parte. It was urged that proclaimed offender, resulting in his being proceeded ex parte. It was urged that proclaimed offender, resulting in his being proceeded ex parte. It was urged that the executing Court Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner is willing to contest the failed to appreciate that the petitioner is willing to contest the suit, and the dismissal of objections gravely prejudices his right to avail remedy suit, and the dismissal of objections gravely prejudices his right to avail remedy suit, and the dismissal of objections gravely prejudices his right to avail remedy suit, and the dismissal of objections gravely prejudices his right to avail remedy under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. It was further submitted that the decree was obtained under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. It was further submitted that the decree was obtained under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. It was further submitted that the decree was obtained under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. It was further submitted that the decree was obtained ve dismissed by suppression of facts and therefore the executing Court should have dismissed by suppression of facts and therefore the executing by suppression of facts and therefore the executing the execution petition. the execution petition. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-6693-2025 (O&M) Findings of this Court Findings of this Court -3- - 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The contentions raised by the petitioner are wholly without and perused the record. The contentions raised by the petitioner are wholly without and perused the record. The contentions raised by the petitioner are wholly without and perused the record. The contentions raised by the petitioner are wholly without merit. It is trite law that the Executing Court merit. It is trite law that the go behind the decree. Its Court cannot go behind the decree. Its function is confined to executing the decree as it stands. It cannot examine the function is confined to executing the decree as it stands. It cannot examine the function is confined to executing the decree as it stands. It cannot examine the function is confined to executing the decree as it stands. It cannot examine the validity of the judgment and decree or enquire whether sufficient cause existed for validity of the judgment and decree or enquire whether sufficient cause existed for validity of the judgment and decree or enquire whether sufficient cause existed for validity of the judgment and decree or enquire whether sufficient cause existed for ceedings. Such issues fall exclusively the defendant’s absence in the original proceedings. Such issues fall exclusively ceedings. Such issues fall exclusively the defendant’s absence in the original pro in an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, within the domain of the trial Court in an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, in an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, within the domain of the trial not in execution. not in execution. 7. The petitioner has not filed, or at least had not filed till the date of The petitioner has not filed, or at least had not filed till the date of The petitioner has not filed, or at least had not filed till the date of The petitioner has not filed, or at least had not filed till the date of IX Rule 13 CPC seeking to set aside the ex objections, any application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC seeking to set aside the ex IX Rule 13 CPC seeking to set aside the ex objections, any application under Order parte decree dated 29.05.2020. Instead, he has chosen to raise such pleas before the parte decree dated 29.05.2020. Instead, he has chosen to raise such pleas before the parte decree dated 29.05.2020. Instead, he has chosen to raise such pleas before the parte decree dated 29.05.2020. Instead, he has chosen to raise such pleas before the Executing Court. This is a clear attempt to bypass the remedy specifically provided Court. This is a clear attempt to bypass the remedy specifically provided This is a clear attempt to bypass the remedy specifically provided rieved by the ex parte decree, his by law. If the petitioner was genuinely aggrieved by the ex parte decree, his rieved by the ex parte decree, his by law. If the petitioner was genuinely agg remedy lay in approaching the trial Court under remedy lay in approaching the trial Order IX Rule 13 CPC or by filing Order IX Rule 13 CPC or by filing an appeal, not by resisting execution. an appeal, not by resisting execution. 8. The only ground urged by the petitioner is that he remained The only ground urged by the petitioner is that he remained The only ground urged by the petitioner is that he remained The only ground urged by the petitioner is that he remained R and was later in custody. This, even if underground due to pendency of an FIR and was later in custody. This, even if R and was later in custody. This, even if underground due to pendency of an FI accepted, cannot render the decree inexecutable. The E accepted, cannot rende rightly r the decree inexecutable. The Executing Court rightly observed that such circumstances do not attach any illegality to the decree. The observed that such circumstances do not attach any illegality to the decree. The observed that such circumstances do not attach any illegality to the decree. The observed that such circumstances do not attach any illegality to the decree. The ee unless and until it is decree dated 29.05.2020 remains a valid and binding decree unless and until it is decree dated 29.05.2020 remains a valid and binding decr decree dated 29.05.2020 remains a valid and binding decr set aside in appropriate proceedings. set aside in appropriate proceedings. 9. The petitioner is seeking to take advantage of his own conduct. The petitioner is seeking to take advantage of his own conduct. The petitioner is seeking to take advantage of his own conduct. The petitioner is seeking to take advantage of his own conduct. Having absconded and been declared proclaimed offender in the criminal case, he Having absconded and been declared proclaimed offender in the criminal case, he Having absconded and been declared proclaimed offender in the criminal case, he Having absconded and been declared proclaimed offender in the criminal case, he and allowed the matter to proceed ex did not participate in the civil proceedings and allowed the matter to proceed ex and allowed the matter to proceed ex did not participate in the civil proceedings TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-6693-2025 (O&M) -4- - parte. The law does not permit a litigant to benefit from his own default. Permitting parte. The law does not permit a litigant to benefit from his own default. Permitting parte. The law does not permit a litigant to benefit from his own default. Permitting parte. The law does not permit a litigant to benefit from his own default. Permitting such objections in execution would defeat the finality of decrees and encourage such objections in execution would defeat the finality of decrees and encourage such objections in execution would defeat the finality of decrees and encourage such objections in execution would defeat the finality of decrees and encourage dilatory tactics. 10. er Article 227 of the Constitution is The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is er Article 227 of the Constitution is The scope of interference und limited to cases of patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. The limited to cases of patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. The limited to cases of patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. The limited to cases of patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. The impugned order of the executing Court dismissing impugned order of the executing the objections is in consonance dismissing the objections is in consonance rmity warranting with settled principles of law and discloses no such infirmity warranting with settled principles of law and discloses no such infi with settled principles of law and discloses no such infi interference. Conclusion 11. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court For the reasons aforesaid, this no merit in the civil Court finds no merit in the civil revision petition. The impugned order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned revision petition. The impugned order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned revision petition. The impugned order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned revision petition. The impugned order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned Executing Court Court is upheld. 12. 13. The present revision petition is dismissed accordingly. The present revision petition is dismissed accordingly. The present revision petition is dismissed accordingly.
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 September 22, 2025 tripti (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non : Yes/No : Yes/No Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document