Elis Jane Quinlan And Ors vs Naveen Kumar Seth, Director F Candica ... on 10 February, 2026
7. Be that as it may, I shall now examine the merits of the contention advanced
on behalf of the petitioner, lest the Courts do not get embroiled in such
unstatable matters in future. Reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the
provisions of Order 14, Civil Procedure Code which are inapplicable to the
present case. We are concerned with the execution proceedings which are
governed by the provisions of Order 21, Civil Procedure Code. In my view, Order
14 would apply only to the procedure regarding determination of the suit and
not to the execution proceedings. Reference is also made to Order XXI, Rule 101
and Rule 105. On plain reading of the said provisions it would appear that the
Executing Court is not under any obligation to frame issue regarding the
question which has been raised before it. Framing of issue by the Executing
Court would at best be a matter of prudence but not a rule. The Court
below has rightly relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1956 Raj 1 (para 6)
Ramjivan Ramnath v. Roopchand to hold that issues are not necessarily framed
when objections in execution proceedings are decided. In the light of the said
decision no further investigation on this question would survive. Instead of
_____________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NO. 25 of 32
TUESDAY, 10 FEBRUARY 2026
::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2026 20:44:59 :::
Neeta Sawant WP 14283 of 2023.docx
spending its precious time on adjudicating such trivial matters, the Executing
Court would be well advised to decide the main execution proceedings with
utmost dispatch.