Delhi District Court
Vide This Order vs Unknown on 20 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. RACHNA TIWARI LAKHANPAL
SCJ/RC(WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Ex.No.- 70/10
Smt. Sarla Garg .......... Decree Holder
Versus
Smt. Leela Devi & Ors. ....... Judgment Debtor
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off the objections filed on behalf of the JDs/defendants.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present objections are herein as under:-
The DH/plaintiff had filed the suit for possession; thereby submitting that JDs/defendants were unauthorized occupants in the suit premises. Initially, Sh. Mool Chand was the tenant in the property and tenancy was terminated vide legal notice and Sh. Mool Chand had become the statutory tenant. Thereafter, legal heirs of Sh. Mool chand were entitled to inherit or to stay in the property for one year. The JDs/defendant's possession was unauthorized in law as they were never dependent upon Sh. Mool Chand. The trial was contested by the JDs/defendants and Ld. trial court passed the judgment/decree after considering and appreciating the evidence of both the parties and suit for possession was decreed in favour of the DH/ plaintiff.
Thereafter, JDs went into an appeal, however, this appeal was Ex. No. 70/10 Page..1/6 dismissed on 27.03.2014.
3. In the present objections filed by JD/defendants, it is submitted that the decree and judgment passed is un-executable as there is no site plan on record of the alleged structure changes. It was submitted that during the trial of the case, one site plan was filed by the DH/plaintiff and the other site plan was filed by the Jds/defendants; wherein JDs had shown structure of the suit premises and JDs had specifically challenged the correctness of the site plan filed by the DH/plaintiff in the present case. The site plan, which was filed by the JDs/defendants, was admitted by the DH/plaintiff. Hence, in view of the admission of the DH about the correctness of the site plan of JDs, it is clear that the suit premises is as per the site plan filed by the JDs, not in respect of the site plan filed by the DH in the trial. Hence, the possession cannot be delivered to the DH as per the suit of the DH/plaintiff. As per law, the possession of the structural changes made by the JDs as per the judgment cannot be provided to the DH in the absence of the site plan of the said structural changes, which the DH failed to file in the Ld. Trial Court.
4. I have heard the parties and perused the record.
5. The relevant extract of the judgment passed by ld. predecessor of this court is being reproduced as here under :-
"In view of the specific findings on all the issues aforesaid, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed as under: A decree of possession is passed in favour of plaintiff and Ex. No. 70/10 Page..2/6 against all the defendants and the defendants are hereby directed to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of entire first floor of suit property bearing no. 3345, Kucha Kashgari, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi (shown in red colour in the site plan Ex.P6) with whatever structural changes made by them therein on as is where is basis to the plaintiff within four weeks from today".
6. Perusal of the above-stated para makes it clear that decree was passed as per the site plan Ex.P-6 and the contention whether the DH had admitted the site plan of the JDs/defendants with the alleged correct structural shown or not, cannot be decided in execution petition. It is the contention supposed to be raised in the appeal and the appeal filed by the JDs/defendants has already been dismissed; that too observing the conduct of the JDs/defendants.
7. Even otherwise, all hue and cry has been raised by the defendants that correct structure was shown by him in the site plan and hence, the decree is un-executable. But, I find no basis in this contention because of the reason that part of the decree specifically states that "whatever structure changes made by them therein on as is where is basis to the plaintiff", meaning thereby presuming there are some differences in the site plan and the structure is as per the site plan of the JD, the decree is passed qua the entire first floor of the suit property bearing no. 3345, Kucha Ex. No. 70/10 Page..3/6 Kashgari, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi, on "as is where is basis". Now, whether the structure raised was rightly shown or not is relevant to execute the decree as the decree has been passed qua the entire floor qua the whatever structure thereupon.
8. Further, in the present case, there is no dispute with regard to identification of the suit property, therefore the site plan is of not much importance. The decree can be executed without site plan qua the entire first floor of the property bearing no. 3345, Kucha Kashgari, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi (shown in red colour in the site plan Ex.P-6). Hence, there is no basis in the argument that the decree cannot be executed without the site plan.
9. Hence, I find no basis on the contention raised by the defendants, it seems that to further delay the execution proceedings, the frivolous objections have been filed. In fact such conduct of the defendants was observed by the Hon'ble High Court as well, which was observed in the judgment of ld. trial court also. Paras No. 13 & 14 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble High Court are relevant to note the conduct of the defendant (petitioner therein) in this matter. Same are reproduced herein as under:-
xxxx
13. A bare reading of both orders would clearly show about the conduct of the petitioners, who have concealed material facts from this court about dismissal of earlier CM(M) by this very court with costs. Petitioners only Ex. No. 70/10 Page..4/6 motive and intention is to delay the proceedings before trial court. They have been flouting the orders of the trial court as well as of this court, with impunity. Their only intention is not to lead any evidence.
14. It is well settled that frivolous litigation clogs the wheels of justice, making it difficult for courts to provide easy and speedy justice to genuine litigants. It has also been observed in large number of cases that meritless litigation should be dealt with heavy hands. Any litigant who indulges in mindless litigation and unnecessarily waste the precious time of the courts should not be spared. He must pay heavy costs for wasting time of the court.
xxxxx
10. Such conduct of the defendants/JDs was observed by Ld. Appellate court as well, the relevant extract is being reproduced herein as under:-
"Having reference to the order dated 07.12.2013, and the proceedings thereafter i.e 16.01.2014, 18.01.2014, in spite of same, there has been no compliance of the orders of not only of this court but the appellant was not able to show the compliance of orders of Hon'ble High Court in C.M (Main) No. 1003/10 on 06.08.2010 and C.M (Main) No.206/10 on 02.11.2010.
Ex. No. 70/10 Page..5/6
Further, the appellant has indulged in gross abuse of the process of law at each stage and also not inclined to obey the orders of the court including those of the Hon'ble High Court. On the contrary, ld. Counsel for appellant even tried to mislead the court by producing some totally different receipts shown to have been issued from DLSA for a paltry sum of Rs. 25,000/ by each order.
In view of the contumacious and willful noncompliance of each of the orders of Hon'ble High Court as well as the order of this court, the appellant cannot be held to be entitled to be heard any further on this appeal."
11. Twice, the cost was imposed upon the JDs/ defendants of Rs. 25,000/- each. The cost imposed upon the JDs/defendants on 06.08.10 has still not been deposited and JD/ defendants had audacity to make wrong statement before this court also when she submitted that she deposited cost of Rs. 25,000/- imposed upon her in both the cases. Whereas, on a later date, upon further query made by the court, she submitted that she has deposited the cost only once and not the further cost.
12. Hence, the malafide conduct of the defendants is at writ large. Objections are dismissed being absolutely frivolous with the cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RACHNA TIWARI LAKHANPAL)
COURT ON 20.05.2015 SCJ/RC(WEST)/ DELHI
Ex. No. 70/10 Page..6/6