Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Brief facts relevant for disposal of the present application are that the decree holder (DH) filed the present execution petition for execution 1/5 Sh. Ramesh Chand Gupta Vs. Sh. Samay Singh of the decree dated 02.05.1990 passed in suit no. 163/1989 (the said suit). In the present execution petition, the objector filed the objection application u/o 21 Rule 99 and 100 of CPC and claimed ownership rights w.r.t. an area admeasuring 2785 sq. yards out of the total area of the land admeasuring 4 Bighas 16 Biswa bearing Khasra no.506, situated at village Naib Sarai, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi (the said land). The said objection was dismissed by this court on 27.09.2010. Being aggrieved by the same, the objection preferred an appeal being EFA no. 20/2010 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Vide consent order dated 12.01.2012, the order dated 27.09.2010 was set aside and the matter was remanded back for disposal after giving the opportunities to the parties to lead evidence. Now at this stage, the objector moved the present application.

9. Perusal of the record reveals that in the present execution petition, one Sh. Yogender Kumar and Sh. Om Kumar also filed the objection application u/o 21 Rule 97 of CPC which was also dismissed on 27.09.2010. Being aggrieved by the same, the said objectors preferred an appeal being EFA no. 18/2010 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Vide order dated 05.07.2011 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the said appeal was allowed. In the said objection application as well as the appeal, the objectors therein raised a plea regarding service of JD and alleged fraud played by DH in the said suit. Both the said objections were filed and argued by the different counsels but the same were argued together and were disposed of by the common order dated 27.09.2010. Present counsel for the objector also represented and argued the matter for it at that stage. As such, it can be held 4/5 Sh. Ramesh Chand Gupta Vs. Sh. Samay Singh that the present objector as well as its counsel was well aware of the service report of JD in the said suit and pleas raised by the other objectors to that effect. Not the least, the present counsel also represented and argued the appeal preferred by the other objectors/ the appellants in EFA no. 18/2010 though he was not the counsel for them at that before this court and raised the same plea as raised in the present application. The appeal EFA no. 18/2010 was disposed of on 05.07.2011. Thereafter, the present counsel also argued the appeal being EFA no. 20/2010 for the present objector also and the same was disposed of on 12.01.2012. Order dated 12.01.2012, no where reveals that the objector raised the said plea or sought liberty to raise the said plea before this court. Hence, it can be held that counsel for the objector was well aware of the service report of JD in the said suit and the pleas available to it well in advance but has not raised the same. As such, the same stands waived. Now at this stage, the objector cannot be allowed to raise the plea that it was not aware of the said pleas earlier. Therefore, there is no substance in the plea raised by the objector to this effect.