Title: Jini Dhanrajgir v. Shibu Mathew
A. Headnote:
- Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) mandates the Executing Court to determine all questions arising between parties related to execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree, avoiding the need for separate suits. The intention behind conferring exclusive jurisdiction upon the Executing Court is to prevent unnecessary litigation and achieve speedy disposal of such questions.
- Rules 97, 101, and 98 of Order 21 of the CPC enable the Executing Court to adjudicate inter-se claims of the decree holder and third parties in cases of objections or resistance to the execution of a decree. These rules provide a comprehensive code in themselves.
- The Executing Court has the authority to conduct an inquiry to determine the legality of obstructions during the execution of a decree.
- Rule 102 of Order 21, along with Rules 98 and 100, does not apply to cases where resistance or obstruction occurs in the execution of a decree for possession of immovable property after the defendant has transferred the property to another person.
- When objections are raised by respondents against the execution of a decree, evidence needs to be presented, and the objections should be examined by the Executing Court.
- Before directly appealing to the Supreme Court, parties should first approach the High Court, as the power to grant leave under Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court provides an available remedy.
- The court refuses to interfere with the impugned order, upholds it, and dismisses the appeals. The Executing Court is directed to proceed with the application under Rule 97 of Order 21 of the CPC, considering the objections raised by the respondents and aiming to resolve the matter within 18 months, considering the long delay in executing the decree.
B. The ratio decidendi, or the legal principle established by the court in the case of Jini Dhanrajgir v. Shibu Mathew, can be summarized as follows:
1. The Executing Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine all questions related to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree, as mandated by Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). This jurisdiction is conferred to prevent unnecessary litigation and ensure speedy resolution of such matters.
2. Rules 97, 101, and 98 of Order 21 of the CPC provide a comprehensive code that enables the Executing Court to adjudicate inter-se claims of the decree holder and third parties in cases of objections or resistance to the execution of a decree.
3. Rule 102 of Order 21, along with Rules 98 and 100, does not apply to cases where resistance or obstruction occurs in the execution of a decree for possession of immovable property after the defendant has transferred the property to another person.
4. The Executing Court has the authority to conduct an inquiry to determine the legality of obstructions during the execution of a decree.
5. When objections are raised by respondents against the execution of a decree, evidence needs to be presented, and the objections should be examined by the Executing Court to determine their merits.
6. Parties should exhaust the available remedy at the level of the High Court before directly appealing to the Supreme Court, as the power to grant leave under Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary.
7. In this specific case, the court refused to interfere with the impugned order, upholding it and dismissing the appeals. The Executing Court was directed to proceed with the application under Rule 97 of Order 21 of the CPC, considering the objections raised by the respondents and aiming to resolve the matter within 18 months due to the significant delay in executing the decree.
Let's assign names to the parties involved in the case for better understanding:
Plaintiff: Jini Dhanrajgir
Defendant: Shibu Mathew
Respondents: The individuals to whom the defendant sold the property
Now, I'll summarize each paragraph with the assigned names:
Paragraph 1: Jini Dhanrajgir (plaintiff) filed a case against Shibu Mathew (defendant) regarding the sale of a property. The defendant sold the property to some respondents, who were issued purchase certificates. The court ordered the delivery of the property to the plaintiff and appointed an Advocate Commissioner to oversee it. However, the respondents objected to the delivery, leading to multiple objections in the execution proceedings. The plaintiff then filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and the High Court directed the Executing Court to consider the plaintiff's contentions. The Principal Sub-Judge subsequently issued an order on 29-06-2018, which is being challenged.
Paragraph 2: The court examines whether it should interfere with the order under appeal. It highlights that according to Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the Executing Court has the authority to decide all questions related to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree, thus avoiding the need for separate lawsuits. The court emphasizes that the purpose of conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Executing Court is to prevent unnecessary litigation and ensure a speedy resolution of such matters.
Paragraph 3: The court explains that Rules 97, 101, and 98 of Order 21 of the CPC allow the Executing Court to adjudicate the claims between the plaintiff and the respondents in cases of objections or resistance to the execution of the decree. This prevents lengthy litigation in independent suits. The court cites previous cases, including Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and Asgar v. Mohan Varma, which have held that Rules 97 to 106 of Order 21 of the CPC constitute a comprehensive code. It also refers to Bhanwar Lal v. Satyanarain, which empowers the Executing Court to conduct an inquiry to determine the legality of obstructions during the execution of a decree.
Paragraph 4: The court concludes that Rule 102 of Order 21, along with Rules 98 and 100, do not apply to cases where resistance or obstruction occurs in the execution of a decree for possession of immovable property after the defendant has transferred the property to another person. The court observes that the objections raised by the respondents cannot be dismissed as lacking merit. The court also highlights the need to examine the purchase certificates in favor of the defendant and the respondents. It states that the Executing Court was justified in considering the objections and conducting an inquiry since evidence needs to be presented.
Paragraph 5: The court agrees with the argument that the applicants (Jini Dhanrajgir) should have approached the High Court instead of directly appealing to the Supreme Court. It explains that the power to grant leave under Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary, and the court will not allow a party to bypass the remedy available at the High Court unless specific conditions are met. The court refuses to interfere with the impugned order, upholds it, and dismisses the appeals. It directs the Executing Court to proceed with the application under Rule 97 of Order 21 of the CPC, considering the objections raised by the respondents and aiming to resolve the matter within 18 months, considering the long delay in executing the decree.
