2010 (9) TMI 1134 - SC - Indian Laws

decree passed remains unexecuted after the lapse of 34 - legacy of litigation to the next generation - The Division Bench noted that the questions sought to be raised in the third round of the proceedings had been dealt with and answered against the judgment debtor in terms of the earlier orders passed by the Executing Court and the Appellate Court in appeal. There is, in our opinion, nothing wrong with that view to warrant interference. The HC has taken pains to recall the history of the litigation, the issues that were raised from time to time and the judgments that determined those issues. It was justified in taking the view that the judgment debtor had successfully prevented delivery of possession of the property to the decree holder for such a long time even after the sale of the property in her favour which was found by all the courts including this Court to be perfectly valid in law. The argument that even after the sale was declared to be legally valid, the decree holder could not demand delivery of possession, as the decree stood fully adjusted and satisfied was also rightly rejected by the Executing Court, in its order dated 25.9.1984 against which the judgment debtor had sought no redress. In as much as the Division Bench ignored that legal deficiency in the order and proceeded to decide the appeal on merits, it committed a mistake that ought to be corrected by this Court, was the only submission made by Mr. Kapoor that merits consideration. HELD THAT - In the present case the appellate Court appears to have decided against remanding the matter to the Single Judge on the ground of absence of reasons in the order passed by the latter because any such remand would have only prolonged the agony of the parties. From a reading of the impugned order of the appellate Court it is clear that the appellate Court was conscious of the fact that the litigation had been prolonged for many years. It, therefore, decided to resolve the matter on merits rather than remitting the same back for a fresh disposal by the learned Single Judge. In as much as the appellate Court adopted that approach it did not, in our opinion, commit any mistake to warrant our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The litigation between the parties having continued for three decades, the discretion vested in the appellate Court and was rightly exercised by it. The submissions made by Mr. Kapoor that the appellate Court ought to have remitted the matter back to the Single Judge must, therefore, fail and is hereby rejected. In the result this appeal fails and dismissed.

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the auction sale and subsequent proceedings.
2. Validity of the compromise agreement.
3. Objections to the attachment and sale of the property.
4. Requirement of notice to the judgment debtor.
5. Validity of the orders passed by the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Auction Sale and Subsequent Proceedings:

The judgment debtor contended that the auction sale and subsequent proceedings were fraudulent and violated the provisions of Order XXI Rules 72 and 84 of the CPC. It was argued that the Executing Court committed a serious irregularity by directing the attachment of property and issuing a sale proclamation without adhering to the legal requirements. The Supreme Court noted that these contentions had been raised and rejected by the Executing Court and the High Court in earlier proceedings, and the Special Leave Petition against these orders had been dismissed, thereby bringing finality to the issue. The Court held that any attempt to re-agitate these questions was futile and an abuse of the process of law.

2. Validity of the Compromise Agreement:

The judgment debtor challenged the compromise agreement on the grounds of fraud, arguing that it was void ab initio. The Executing Court had confirmed the sale in favor of the decree holder based on the compromise, and this was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court reiterated that the compromise was valid and legally binding, as previously determined by the Executing Court and affirmed by the High Court. The Court noted that the allegations of fraud were bald and untenable.

3. Objections to the Attachment and Sale of the Property:

The judgment debtor raised fresh objections, claiming that the property was exempt from attachment and sale as it was a residential premises and the decree was a simple money decree. The Executing Court had previously held that the confirmation of sale and issuance of the sale certificate were legal and valid, and the decree holder was entitled to possession of the property. The Supreme Court noted that these issues had been conclusively determined in earlier proceedings and could not be re-agitated.

4. Requirement of Notice to the Judgment Debtor:

The judgment debtor argued that the sale was a nullity due to the absence of notice, relying on the decision in Mahakal Automobiles and Anr. v. Kishan Swaroop Sharma. The Supreme Court observed that the requirement of notice had been addressed in earlier proceedings, and the Executing Court had found the sale to be valid. The Court held that the issue of notice had been conclusively determined and could not be reopened.

5. Validity of the Orders Passed by the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court:

The judgment debtor contended that the first appeal was dismissed by the Single Judge without recording reasons, and this defect was not cured by the Division Bench. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of recording reasons to ensure transparency and fairness in the decision-making process. However, the Court noted that the Division Bench had examined the merits of the case and provided a detailed analysis, thereby addressing the deficiency. The Court held that remanding the matter would only prolong the litigation, and the Division Bench was justified in resolving the issues on merits.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decisions of the Executing Court and the High Court. The Court emphasized that the issues raised by the judgment debtor had been conclusively determined in earlier proceedings and could not be re-agitated. The Court also upheld the validity of the compromise agreement and the auction sale, and found no merit in the objections raised by the judgment debtor. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.

← Previous Next →