Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(5)..................
(6) (a) Where the registration of the document is required under any law for the time being in force, the Court, or such officer of the Court as may be authorised in this behalf by the Court, shall cause the document to be registered in accordance with such law.
(b)...... ....................
(c)...... ........ ........."

Reading of the above Clauses of Rule 34 of Order 21 of Civil Procedure Code makes it clear that where a decree is for execution of a document and the judgment debtor neglects to execute document and thereby refuses to obey the decree, the decree holder may prepare a draft of the document or endorsement in accordance with the terms of the decree and deliver the same to the Court. The Court thereupon, has to cause the draft to be served on the judgment debtor together with notice requiring him to make his objections, if any, within such time as the Court may fix in that behalf.

25. Where registration of the document is required under any law for the time being in force, the Court or such officer of the Court as may be authorised in this behalf by the Court has to execute the document and register the same in accordance with law. Thus, reading of Sub-rule (4) as a whole would indicate that it deals with the preparation of draft document, service thereof on the judgment debtor with a notice calling upon him to file his objections, if any, and upon receipt of the objections; the Court has to decide the same in accordance with law and upon decision thereof; after effecting necessary alterations in the draft, the Court has to execute and register the same in accordance with law either by itself or by such officer as it may authorise in this behalf.

26. The objector, if not satisfied with the order of the Court deciding objections taken, can file an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(i) of Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, the scope of the appeal, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, is restricted to order dealing with the objections to the draft of the document. The appellate Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Order 43 cannot travel beyond the purview of its appellate jurisdiction.

27. Viewed from the above angle, if one turns to the objections raised by the appellants and dissects the same, then, it would be clear that except a minor objection to the draft document that it contains the name of a dead person i.e. Shri Madhavdas; there is hardly any substantial objection to the draft document. The another objection sought to be raised by the appellants relates to the nature of the decree. The said objection, in my view, cannot be gone into in this appeal. It cannot be said to be an objection to the draft document. It is an objection which relates to the nature of decree. Such objection is not permissible under Order 21, Rule 34(3) of Civil Procedure Code. Alternatively, assuming it to be within the purview of Rule 34 of Order 21, even then, the appellants cannot succeed in view of the prior order of the executing Court dated 3-9-1997. An identical objection was raised by defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 8 along with defendant No. 10. The same has been dealt with by the executing Court vide its order dated 3-9-1997. By the said order dated 3-9-1997, the objection in this behalf was overruled. This order was appealable order. No appeal was preferred against this order, with the result, the said order became final and conclusive and would operate as res judicata between the parties as observed by the Apex Court in Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Smt. Deorajin Debi, , wherein the Apex Court ruled that the principle of res judicata also applies in between two stages of the same litigation to the extent that a Court, whether the trial Court or a higher Court, having at an earlier stage decided a matter in one way will not allow the parties to re-agitate the same matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the order dated 3-9-1997 shall operate as res judicata, as such it was not open for the appellants to reiterate and raise the same objection once again with respect to the nature of decree. The executing Court, therefore, rightly held that the decree in question has to be treated as a decree for specific performance of duties cast upon the defendants/judgment debtors. No fault can be found with the finding recorded in this behalf.

33. The last objection which needs consideration is that the draft document contains the name of a dead person i.e. of late Madhavdas, the original owner who came to be substituted with his legal heirs i.e. defendents/judgment debtor Nos. 1 to 8. It is true that Madhavdas being dead his name could not have been shown in the draft document. The objection in this behalf is liable to be sustained. Accordingly, it is directed that the name of Shri Madhavdas Tulsidas be deleted from the draft indenture and be substituted with that of his legal heirs who were parties to the suit and are parties to the decree in execution i.e. defendant/judgment debtor Nos. 1 to 8. With this small modification, the draft indenture has got to be approved. Accordingly, the same is approved. The impugned order passed by the executing Court is confirmed with slight modification as indicated herein.