Executing Court Cannot Allow Mala Fide Objections, Says Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court, on July 25, upheld the order of the Executing Court whereby objections preferred by the appellant under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be rejected. 

Justice Yashwant Verma, noted that, “…the Executing Court has rightly found that while it is permissible for a third party to file objections referable to Order XXI Rule 97, those objections must be based on valid and cogent material.”

Facts

The dispute emanated from a decree passed by the competent court for recovery of possession of a farmhouse. The appeal filed by the judgment debtor against the aforesaid decree came to be dismissed by this Court on 07 October 2021.

In the execution proceedings, appellant filed her objections. In the objection the appellant laid a claim upon the suit property based on a Will dated 06 August 2018 stated to have been executed by the father of the decree holders in her favour.  It was the case of the appellant that in terms of that Will executed by the father of the decree holders, the entire suit property had been bequeathed to her.

The decree holders controverted the aforesaid and challenged the authenticity of the Will as well as the case set forth by the appellant here. One of the objections which was taken was that their father could not have bequeathed more than fifty per cent of the suit property since the other half fell in the share of a HUF.

On 09 December 2021, the appellant filed a rejoinder affidavit in the execution proceedings. The additional documents on which the entire dispute revolved were filed around the same time. The index to the additional documents refers to a Will of 05 August 2018 stated to have been executed by the father of the decree holders in favor of the appellant. However, the copy of the Will enclosed therewith and placed on the record bears the date of 05 October 2018. During proceedings the discrepancy was pointed out.

The decree holders pointed out that while in terms of the former Will the appellant is stated to had been bequeathed the suit property in its entirety, the latter purported to confer rights on the appellant to the extent of half acre of the suit property.

The appellant disowned the additional documents filed by her on the basis of which the Executing Court proceeded.

Contentions

Senior Advocate Manish Vashisht appeared for the appellant and contended that in the face of the appellant having denied filling the additional documents and the Will of 05 October 2018, it was incumbent upon the Executing Court to initiate an appropriate enquiry rather than holding that the appellant had forged or fabricated records.

He further submitted that it was clearly unimaginable that the appellant would have resorted to any action in terms of which her case resting on the Will of 06 August 2018 would stand diminished.

Senior Advocate TK Ganju and Vikas Dhawan appeared on behalf of the respondents and argued that lawyer of the appellant never filed any affidavit denying the tendering of the additional documents nor did he place any denial on oath. 

It was further contended that it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to disown the Will of 05 October 2018 or to claim that the said document was never tendered or filed in the proceedings in question.

Decision

The Court observed that, “Objections which lack credibility or fail to raise triable issues are liable to be outrightly rejected. The Executing Court has in the considered opinion of this Court also rightly observed that it is not mandatorily required to frame issues, record evidence or hold a full-fledged trial in respect of an objection which may come to be tendered by a third party.”

The Court, while rejecting the appeal, held, “the Executing Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the objections raised were not only frivolous and lacking in substance but were based on the production of false and fabricated documents. The facts as have come to be noticed by the Executing Court, thus compels the Court to record its conclusion that the resistance to the decree was based on a claim which was wholly frivolous and mala fide.”