2003 (10) TMI 658 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Misuse of judicial process by unscrupulous litigants.
2. Correctness of the site plan attached to the ejectment petition.
3. Execution of the eviction order and objections raised by the tenants.
4. High Court's handling of the objections and issuance of warrants of possession.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Misuse of Judicial Process by Unscrupulous Litigants:
The Supreme Court noted that the judicial process was being misused by unscrupulous litigants. The High Court succumbed to an unjust plea by the respondents in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized the need to curb such abuses of the judicial process.

2. Correctness of the Site Plan Attached to the Ejectment Petition:
The appellant, the owner of a shop, filed an ejectment application for eviction of the respondents from Shop No.3. One of the specific issues raised pertained to the correctness of the site plan attached to the ejectment petition. The onus of proving this issue was on the respondents-tenants, but they did not address any argument regarding the same. The trial court decided the issue against the respondents. The first respondent admitted in his evidence that the site plan of Shop No.3 was correct. This issue was not agitated in subsequent appeals or revisions.

3. Execution of the Eviction Order and Objections Raised by the Tenants:
After obtaining an eviction order, the appellant faced multiple objections from the respondents during the execution process. The respondents disputed the correctness of the boundaries of the shop and the identity of the property. The executing court repeatedly rejected these objections, holding that the issue was already settled in the original ejectment proceedings. The High Court, in a revision petition, also observed that the tenants' attempts were to delay their ejectment. Despite these rejections, the respondents continued to raise objections, leading to multiple warrants of possession being issued and not executed.

4. High Court's Handling of the Objections and Issuance of Warrants of Possession:
The High Court, in its impugned order, directed the executing court to first consider the objections raised by the respondents before issuing warrants of possession. The High Court also ordered the restoration of possession to the respondents. The Supreme Court found this order erroneous, noting that the objection regarding the site plan was already settled and could not be re-agitated in the execution proceedings. The High Court's observation that the shop in question was not the one regarding which the eviction order was passed was contrary to the finding in the original proceedings. The Supreme Court emphasized that the respondents' objections were a tactic to delay the eviction and abuse the judicial process.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's impugned order with exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000, emphasizing that courts should be vigilant against litigants who misuse the judicial process to delay the execution of decrees. The Supreme Court's judgment underscores the importance of upholding the integrity of judicial proceedings and ensuring that decree holders can enjoy the fruits of their decrees without undue delay.