High Court · 2025

"Heard Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajai Mani Tiwari, learned counsel for decree holder/respondents no.1 and 2. In a suit instituted in the year 1987 by respondents no.1 and 2/decree holder against the judgment debtor/respondents no.3 to 5 for eviction, was decreed in the year 1998, against which, an appeal was filed by the judgment debtor and the matter has travelled up to this Court. The execution proceedings were launched by the decree holder, and objections filed by the judgment debtor under Section 47 CPC were rejected twice. Now, the present petitioner has filed his objections on 19.12.2024 under Section 47 objecting to the decree on the ground that he is the tenant of the accommodation in dispute, and should be heard before the decree is executed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was registered on 19.12.2024 and notices were issued on the objections moved under Section 47 CPC by the petitioner and date was fixed for 18.02.2025. She further contends that the stay application was not considered on that date, and notices had been issued. According to her, before the decree is executed, the petitioner should have been heard. Sri Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for decree holder has vehemently opposed the writ petition on the ground that the decree is of the year 1998 and the petitioner has been set up by the judgment debtor/second respondent as she is related to the judgment debtor. He further contends that every effort is being made by the judgment debtor to frustrate the decree, and see that the same is not executed. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. It is a matter of great concern that the decree is of the year 1998 but the same has not been executed and the same is pending consideration before Executing Court for the last 27 years. When the decree was going to be executed, it appears that the petitioner has appeared who is alleged to be related to the judgment debtor and the objections under Section 47 CPC have been moved. Looking to the exceptional circumstances of the case, Executing Court is hereby directed to prepone the matter and decide the objections filed under Section 47 CPC along with stay application on the same date i.e. 22.01.2025. Till 22.01.2025, the decree shall not be executed. However, it is made clear that this Court has not granted any interim order beyond that date. With the aforesaid observations, present writ petition stands disposed of."

3. The present writ petition has been filed by petitioner against the order passed by executing court not entertaining the application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC as it was sent by post against which a revision was filed which has also been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the decree holder submits that the petitioner is a stranger and to stall the execution of the decree which was made in favour of plaintiffs/decree holder in the year 1998, these applications and proceedings in various forms are being launched by petitioner.

5. Counsel for petitioner submits that despite earlier direction granted by this Court on 10.01.2025, objections filed under Section 47 CPC till date has not been decided. According to him, the application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC was sent by post, and Rule 30 of General Rules (Civil) provides that when any application or petition is received by post, the same has to be returned to sender with a note that it should be presented according to law. The court concerned should not have treated the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, and rejected the same.

6. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the application under Order XXI Rule 97 was sent by post and it should have been returned by the court concerned and should not have been dismissed. He further submits that revisional court has also not dealt with the issue and has only relied upon Rule 30 and rejected the revision.

7. Learned counsel appearing for decree holder submits that the executing court had found the application to be not maintainable as no one had put in appearance on behalf of petitioner when the application was taken up for consideration. It was in absentia that the application was held to be not maintainable. Moreover, he contends that no ground has been taken in the revision by petitioner that the application was not entertained by the court which led to the sending the same through post.

8. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

9. I find that petitioner is deliberately lingering on the execution proceedings and in garb of various applications is trying to stall the execution proceedings. Earlier direction was sought from this Court for disposal of the objections filed under Section 47 CPC and now the petitioner has come up before this Court that application under Order XXI Rule 97 has not been entertained by the court concerned.

10. From perusal of the order of the executing court, it is clear that when the application was taken for consideration, the court found that nobody appeared on behalf of petitioner to press the application and in absentia the court concerned found the application to be not maintainable. Moreover, no ground has been taken in the revision as to why the application was sent by post. Moreover, Rule 30 of the General Rules (Civil) provides that no application shall be entertained by post and it has to be presented by person who has sent.

11. In the instant case, as there is no ground taken in the revision, the revisional court committed no error in rejecting the revision of petitioner and rightly held that mandatory provision of Rule 30 was to be followed.

12. Considering the fact that petitioner has terribly misused the process of law for stalling the execution proceedings, no case for interference is made out in the order impugned.

13. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

14. The executing court is hereby directed to immediately comply the earlier order passed on 10.01.2025 and decide the objections, if any, which had remained filed by petitioner, within a week from today. The executing court will further proceed to decide the execution case within next two weeks, expeditiously, without granting any adjournment to either of the parties as the decree is of the year 1998. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 V.S.Singh VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

"Heard Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajai Mani Tiwari, learned counsel for decree holder/respondents no.1 and 2. In a suit instituted in the year 1987 by respondents no.1 and 2/decree holder against the judgment debtor/respondents no.3 to 5 for eviction, was decreed in the year 1998, against which, an appeal was filed by the judgment debtor and the matter has travelled up to this Court. The execution proceedings were launched by the decree holder, and objections filed by the judgment debtor under Section 47 CPC were rejected twice. Now, the present petitioner has filed his objections on 19.12.2024 under Section 47 objecting to the decree on the ground that he is the tenant of the accommodation in dispute, and should be heard before the decree is executed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was registered on 19.12.2024 and notices were issued on the objections moved under Section 47 CPC by the petitioner and date was fixed for 18.02.2025. She further contends that the stay application was not considered on that date, and notices had been issued. According to her, before the decree is executed, the petitioner should have been heard. Sri Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for decree holder has vehemently opposed the writ petition on the ground that the decree is of the year 1998 and the petitioner has been set up by the judgment debtor/second respondent as she is related to the judgment debtor. He further contends that every effort is being made by the judgment debtor to frustrate the decree, and see that the same is not executed. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. It is a matter of great concern that the decree is of the year 1998 but the same has not been executed and the same is pending consideration before Executing Court for the last 27 years. When the decree was going to be executed, it appears that the petitioner has appeared who is alleged to be related to the judgment debtor and the objections under Section 47 CPC have been moved. Looking to the exceptional circumstances of the case, Executing Court is hereby directed to prepone the matter and decide the objections filed under Section 47 CPC along with stay application on the same date i.e. 22.01.2025. Till 22.01.2025, the decree shall not be executed. However, it is made clear that this Court has not granted any interim order beyond that date. With the aforesaid observations, present writ petition stands disposed of."

3. The present writ petition has been filed by petitioner against the order passed by executing court not entertaining the application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC as it was sent by post against which a revision was filed which has also been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the decree holder submits that the petitioner is a stranger and to stall the execution of the decree which was made in favour of plaintiffs/decree holder in the year 1998, these applications and proceedings in various forms are being launched by petitioner.

5. Counsel for petitioner submits that despite earlier direction granted by this Court on 10.01.2025, objections filed under Section 47 CPC till date has not been decided. According to him, the application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC was sent by post, and Rule 30 of General Rules (Civil) provides that when any application or petition is received by post, the same has to be returned to sender with a note that it should be presented according to law. The court concerned should not have treated the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, and rejected the same.

6. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the application under Order XXI Rule 97 was sent by post and it should have been returned by the court concerned and should not have been dismissed. He further submits that revisional court has also not dealt with the issue and has only relied upon Rule 30 and rejected the revision.

7. Learned counsel appearing for decree holder submits that the executing court had found the application to be not maintainable as no one had put in appearance on behalf of petitioner when the application was taken up for consideration. It was in absentia that the application was held to be not maintainable. Moreover, he contends that no ground has been taken in the revision by petitioner that the application was not entertained by the court which led to the sending the same through post.

8. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

9. I find that petitioner is deliberately lingering on the execution proceedings and in garb of various applications is trying to stall the execution proceedings. Earlier direction was sought from this Court for disposal of the objections filed under Section 47 CPC and now the petitioner has come up before this Court that application under Order XXI Rule 97 has not been entertained by the court concerned.

10. From perusal of the order of the executing court, it is clear that when the application was taken for consideration, the court found that nobody appeared on behalf of petitioner to press the application and in absentia the court concerned found the application to be not maintainable. Moreover, no ground has been taken in the revision as to why the application was sent by post. Moreover, Rule 30 of the General Rules (Civil) provides that no application shall be entertained by post and it has to be presented by person who has sent.

11. In the instant case, as there is no ground taken in the revision, the revisional court committed no error in rejecting the revision of petitioner and rightly held that mandatory provision of Rule 30 was to be followed.

12. Considering the fact that petitioner has terribly misused the process of law for stalling the execution proceedings, no case for interference is made out in the order impugned.

13. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

14. The executing court is hereby directed to immediately comply the earlier order passed on 10.01.2025 and decide the objections, if any, which had remained filed by petitioner, within a week from today. The executing court will further proceed to decide the execution case within next two weeks, expeditiously, without granting any adjournment to either of the parties as the decree is of the year 1998. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 V.S.Singh VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad