Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2(iv) Petitioner did not assail the above order dated 20.01.2024. As per this order, her application moved under Section 151 CPC as well as her third party objections to the execution petition and the objections preferred by the other parties were to be heard by the learned Executing Court on 26.02.2024. Despite this, petitioner moved yet another application under Section 151 CPC praying that her previous application under Section 151 CPC be decided at the first instance. Gist of the contents of the new application moved on 26.02.2024 was the same as of her previous application filed on 19.01.2024. This new application resulted in two adjournments in the execution petition i.e. on 26.02.2024 and on ( 2024:HHC:12160 ) 11.03.2024. On 11.03.2024, learned Executing Court passed an order that the petitioner had previously also filed a similar application on similar grounds, therefore, this application was also required to be decided after hearing the parties on the objections. The matter was accordingly listed for arguments on 18.03.2024. The order passed goes as under:-

It is worth noticing that the amendment sought to be incorporated in the main objections had already been pleaded by the petitioner in her two applications filed under Section 151 CPC on 19.01.2024 & 26.02.2024. This new application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC also resulted in adjournment of execution petition on ( 2024:HHC:12160 ) number of occasions. Finally, the application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, was decided and dismissed by the learned Executing Court on 09.09.2024. While dismissing the application moved by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, learned Executing Court inter-alia observed that petitioner's act and conduct showed that she wanted to delay the execution proceedings; The facts being sought to be incorporated by the petitioner in her objections by amendment, were in her knowledge a long time ago; She had already filed application under Section 151 CPC for dismissing the execution petition on the basis of judgment dated 12.01.2024; The amendment prayed for by the petitioner was not necessary; The application for amendment had been moved with mala-fide intention only to delay the execution proceedings. 2(vi) Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India, petitioner preferred a petition titled as Sushma Aggarwal Vs. Rajeev Aggarwal & Ors. 2, laying challenge to the order dated 09.09.2024 dismissing her application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The matter came up for hearing before this Court on 04.10.2024. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court was not inclined to grant the relief prayed for by the petitioner, therefore, after making submissions for considerable time, her learned counsel sought permission to withdraw the CMPMO No. 586/2024 decided on 04.10.2024 ( 2024:HHC:12160 ) aforesaid petition. Permission was granted and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The said order runs as under:-

3. Submissions 3(i) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 20.01.2024 and 11.03.2024 passed by the learned Executing Court. In terms of order dated 11.03.2024, the second application under Section 151 CPC moved by the petitioner on 26.02.2024 seeking prior adjudication of her first application under Section 151 CPC moved on 19.01.2024, was ordered to be listed for adjudication on 18.03.2024 and was to be "decided after hearing the parties on objections". Learned counsel further contends that in view of nature of submissions made therein, petitioner's application under Section 151 CPC is required to be decided alongwith the objections moved by the parties including the objections filed by petitioner & not afterwards, hence, this petition has been preferred assailing orders dated 20.01.2024 & 11.03.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner would have no grievance in case her application moved under Section 151 CPC is heard by the learned Executing Court alongwith her main objections. 3(ii) Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has taken very strong and serious objections to the institution of the present ( 2024:HHC:12160 ) petition. Learned counsel submits that the present petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. Petition is a deliberate attempt of the petitioner to do bench hunting. Having failed in her legal pursuit before this Bench in Sushma Aggarwal''s2 case against the Executing Court's order dated 09.09.2024 dismissing petitioner's application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the petitioner instituted the present petition assailing the two previous orders passed in the Execution Petition on 20.01.2024 and 11.03.2024. That these orders were not only prior in time to the order impugned in Sushma Aggarwal''s2 case, but had also been accepted by the petitioner. In case, petitioner was aggrieved against these two orders, nothing stopped her from laying challenge to the same at the relevant time or even alongwith the order dated 09.09.2024 impugned in Sushma Aggarwal''s2 case. The petitioner's only endeavour is to delay the execution petition that has been going on ever since the year 2011. Petitioner has been able to deprive respondent No.1 of the fruits of his successful legal pursuit by dragging the Execution Petition.

4(iii) The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner during hearing of the case were that the petitioner would have no objection or grievance, in case, her application under Section 151 CPC is decided alongwith the objections filed by her and the other parties. This is very strange argument on part of the petitioner. Strange being-if this is the stand of the petitioner as now projected, then there is absolutely no cause for her grievance as the order dated 20.01.2024 simply directed listing of application moved by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC for decision "alongwith" objections filed by her & other parties to the execution petition. This was also reiterated in the first line of the order dated 11.03.2024 passed in petitioner's second application moved with request to take up her first application prior to the adjudication of her objections. It is quite evident that even in absence of any substantive grievance against any of the orders, the petitioner has been repeatedly moving one application after another on similar ground, but obviously for the only reason i.e. to delay the execution proceedings. In case, petitioner has no grievance in the decision of her application alongwith her main objections, then there was no occasion for her to have instituted second application on ( 2024:HHC:12160 ) 26.02.2024 for the same relief that her first application be decided prior to decision of her objections. As if on a merry go round, petitioner succeeded in getting the hearings of the execution petition deferred by many dates by moving the second application. Her second application was ordered to be taken up by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 11.03.2024 "after hearing the parties on objections". In the given facts and circumstances, taking into consideration the gist and purport of the orders not only dated 20.01.2024 but the order dated 11.03.2024 as well, it is very clear that learned Trial Court has ordered for considering petitioner's both applications alongwith hearing of the main objections. It is for this reason, the petitioner did not assail the orders dated 20.01.2024 & 11.03.2024 at the relevant point of time.