Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M. Padma Narayan Singh vs The Special C.P. Law And Order &Amp Ors on 19 August, 2014
|2 1
ITEM NO.47 COURT NO.13 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition (Criminal) No.145/2014
M. PADMA NARAYAN SINGH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE SPECIAL C.P. LAW AND ORDER & ORS Respondent(s)
(With appln. (s) for exemption from filing O.T. and permission to
appear and argue in person)
Date : 19/08/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person
For Respondent(s) Ms. Pinki Anand, ASG
Ms. Rekha Pandey, Adv.
Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv.
Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Adv.
Ms. Shabana, Adv.
Mr. Gursharan Singh, Adv.
Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Adv.
Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv.
Ms. Vaishali Ramesh, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the following relief : Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Sanjay Kumar Date: 2014.08.21 13:32:47 IST
Reason: (i) the gift deeds dated 05.02.2010 and 02.06.2011 registered fraudulently related to 1260, Sector D , Pocket-I, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, in favour of Respondent 2 Nos.6 and 7 be declared null and void;
(ii) the decree dated 15th February, 2012 passed in Suit No.778 of 2011 be declared as null and void;
(iii) direct Respondent No.1 to provide police protection to restrain the Respondent Nos.6 & 7 or their agents from entry into the premises at 1260, D1 Vasant Kunj and to secure the safety of the entire belongings of the petitioner in her said flat.
The matter was heard at length on 11.08.2014 and we were of the view that petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained. However on the submissions made by the petitioner who is appearing in person that she was illegally and forcibly thrown out of the Flat, we just called for the record of Execution Case No.35 of 2014 pending before the ADJ-03/PHC, New Delhi. From the perusal of the said record, it appears that on 31.05.2014, the executing court passed the following order :
"JD in person.
I have already heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties on the Objections of JD. I have perused the record carefully.
The objections of the JD have been erroneously filed u/O 9 rule 13 CPC. It is noteworthy that a separate petition u/O 9 rule 13 CPC has also been filed by the JD for setting aside the decree dated 15.02.2012 in Civil Suit No.778/11. Vide a separate order of even date, that application u/O 9 rule 13 CPC (No.M-1/14) of the JD has been dismissed.
The submissions in the present application are same as those in the petition u/O 9 rule 13 CPC registered as M-1/14 titled as "Dr. Meena Chaudhary vs. Renu Sharma & Anr.". During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the JD has conceded that the present application/objections 3 would sustain only if the application u/O 9 rule 13 CPC (M-1/14) is allowed.
JD has filed no supporting document to show that she is the owner of the DDA Flat No.1260, Sector D, Pocket-I, Vasant Kunj, since 01.05.2003. On the contrary, copy of JD’s Writ Petition (Crl. No.1116 of 2010) titled as "Dr. Meena P.N. Singh vs. BSES & Ors." filed before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi shows that JD herself referred to the suit property as Guest House run by Aglomed Co. and claimed to be in occupation of one of its room. The petition is dated 30.07.2010. JD has not disputed this document.
Further, it is well settled that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. The objections of the JD are without any merit and are accordingly dismissed. The stay order dated 15.04.2014 vide which the execution petition was stayed stands vacated.
The application of the decree holder for grant of police aid is pending before this Court. Let the copy of this application alongwith statement of Bailiff and his report as well as copy of this order be placed before Ld. District Judge for providing police aid for execution of Warrant of Attachment and Warrant of Possession.
Put up for further proceedings on 18.07.2014."
It further appears that the necessary police aid was sanctioned. The letter of learned District & Sessions Judge, New Delhi District dated 05.06.2014 along with the copy of communication dated 11.06.2014 of Additional DCP is on record. Consequently, warrants of possession of the suit property and warrants of attachment of the decreetal amount were issued. It was only after complying with the requirements under the Statute, the petitioner appears to have been dispossessed. When the aforesaid order was dictated, the petitioner who is appearing in person, insisted that the matter not to be heard by this Bench.
4In view of the above, put up this matter next week before another Bench with the permission of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.
(SANJAY KUMAR) (SAROJ SAINI) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER