This revision petition challenged an order dismissing objections to the execution of a recovery decree. The High Court held that since the plaintiff did not raise the defense in the main suit, the executing court could not entertain it and directed execution of the decree.
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.
CR No.2501 of 2009(O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.2501 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 4.5.2009
Jasvir Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
M/s Sumiti Kumar and brothers ......Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate for the petitioner.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/judgment debtor against the impugned order dated 13.1.2009 whereby his objections against the execution of judgment and decree dated 10.12.2001 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dabwali in Civil Suit No.483 of 1998, have been dismissed.
As per the averments made in this petition, the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of Rs.2, 10,100/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of its realization, was decreed. The plaintiff-respondent filed execution of the aforesaid judgment and decree. The petitioner who is the judgment-debtor filed objection petition vide Annexure P-2 submitting therein that he is a small farmer and comes under the definition of a marginal farmer and according to the provisions of Haryana Relief and Indebtness Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Haryana Act”), the execution of the decree in its present form was not maintainable. The decree-holder filed his reply to the objections submitting that judgment-debtor was not a small farmer and he was not entitled to the benefit of the Act as claimed and dismissal
2
CR No.2501 of 2009(O&M)
of the objection petition was prayed. The Executing Court vide its order dated 13.1.2009 dismissed the aforesaid objections filed by the petitioner holding that the provisions of the “Haryana Act” were not applicable in the case in hand and directed that the decree-holder was entitled to recover decretal amount of Rs.2, 10,100/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of its realization.
Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the Executing Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner-judgment debtor has vehemently argued that in the light of the objections raised by the petitioner, the trial Court was required to frame a specific issue to adjudicate the controversy. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon a judgment of this Court in Rajbir Singh and another v. Tej Pal and other s 2000(2) PLJ 350.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. However, I find no merit in the objection raised by him.
Undisputedly, in the suit for recovery filed by the decreeholder-respondent, the petitioner did not raise the question with regard to the applicability of the provisions of Haryana Act nor any such issue was claimed by him. It is well settled that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and has to execute the decree as it is. It is not the case of the petitioner that the decree is a nullity. Moreover, the question raised by the petitioner could only be proved or disproved. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable as in that case, a specific issue was raised by the judgment-debtor in the main suit in this respect. However, while deciding the aforesaid issue, the trial Court had specifically mentioned that since the suit was at the trial stage therefore, it was not open to the defendant to raise the question of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court as envisaged under Section 17 of the Haryana Act.
CR No.2501 of 2009(O&M)
3
However, no such plea of jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been raised.
Thus, I find no merit in this revision petition.
Dismissed.
May 4, 2009 ps
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the executing court can entertain a plea of the judgment-debtor regarding the applicability of the Haryana Relief and Indebtness Act when it was not raised in the main suit?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajbir Singh and another v. Tej Pal and otherDistinguished¶20
Rajbir Singh and another v. Tej Pal and other s 2000(2) PLJ 350
Jasvir Singh
M/s Sumiti Kumar and brothers
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
