Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

G.S.Sandhawalia J.

Challenge in the present revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 CPC, is to the order dated 11.04.2014 (Annexure P3), passed by the Executing Court whereby the objections filed in the suit for specific performance and possession (Annexure P2) have been dismissed by holding that there was nothing to show that the petitioner was in possession before the litigation commenced and that the principles of lis pendence were applicable. The objector claims to be a tenant in the premises which are subject matter of execution. The subsequent order, issuing warrants of possession by breaking the locks and providing police help is also subject matter of challenge.

Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has placed reliance upon judgment of the Apex Court in Usha Sinha Vs. Dina Ram & others 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 145 to submit that rule of lis pendence would apply and the Court had examined the issue and found that the petitioner was never in possession prior to the litigation and therefore, her objections had rightly been dismissed.

A perusal of the facts of the case would go on to show that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit for specific performance regarding the two storey house measuring 91 sq.yards on the strength of an agreement dated 25.06.1998, by taking the plea that he had paid an amount of Rs.4 lacs out of the settled amount of Rs.4,21,000/-. The property had been alleged to be sold to respondent No.3 vide sale deed dated 09.12.1998, which was a sham transaction. The suit was decreed on 27.10.2004 and a decree for possession by way of specific performance was granted to the plaintiff-respondent No.1, entitling the defendant-respondents to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the said house on payment of balance of Rs.21,000/-. The judgment-debtor was to deliver possession of the house in dispute to the plaintiff within a period of one month, thereafter, as per the judgment.

The Executing Court, accordingly, placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Pohlo Ram Sharma & others Vs. Narinder Singh Randhawa & others 2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 442 held that if frivolous objections are raised, the Court is not supposed to frame issues and they can be summarily rejected. Accordingly, it was noticed that the suit was filed on 09.01.1999 and the claim was that she had been a tenant since January, 1998 was not supported by any document and the principle of lis pendence applied and accordingly, the objections had been dismissed, as noticed.