The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an order which dismissed objections to possession execution. The court held that a subsequent holder of title derived from the judgment debtor is bound by the decree and cannot resist execution independently.
Revision petition dismissed; objection to execution of warrants of possession dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~12
PREM CHAND .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Roop Narain, Advocate.
versus
DHARMENDER & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
%
O R D E R 11.11.2024
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/11/2024 at 11:49:49
Executing Court on 15.03.2019. It is submitted that he was neither the party to the suit nor did he receive any summon of the Execution Petition despite the fact that he was a necessary party to the Suit. He was not aware of the documents in favour of the Decree Holder as he had neither seen him in the property in question at any time before or after entering into the possession in the Suit property, in 2012. He had bought this property from one Mr. Umesh Kumar, son of Sh. Kishan Chand on 10.11.2012 who in turn had bought the property from Smt. Savitri Devi, on 17.10.2012. It is asserted that since the Revisionist is in possession of the property since prior to institution of the Suit, his rights are affected by the Decree despite which he has not been made a party to the suit. It is thus, stated that the impugned Order of the Executing Court is not tenable and has been made without considering that the Revisionist Prem Chand has valid title documents in his favour.
4. Submissions Heard .
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/11/2024 at 11:49:49
prior to that of the Petitioner. He is bound by the Decree made against the Judgment Debtor. Whatever may be his rights, cannot be agitated by way of Execution as he needs to independently assert his claims against the Judgment Debtor by way of independent proceedings. Moreover, mere Agreement to Sell, etc. do not create any right, title in the Suit property. The Objector may have been in possession, but the decree was against the Judgment Debtor from whom he is deriving the title and is bound by the Decree.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J
NOVEMBER 11, 2024 rk
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/11/2024 at 11:49:49
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a revisionist in possession of property deriving title from the judgment debtor can challenge execution proceedings before asserting independent claims.
Whether an agreement to sell or GPA prior to a decree creates a right to restrain execution against the judgment debtor.
Whether the objection that the revisionist is a necessary party to the suit precludes the dismissal of the revision petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prem Chand
Dharmender & Anr.
Neena Bansal Krishna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
