Murari Lal Decd Thr Lrs v. Sunder Singh & Anr

Judgment debtor.

¶31Now, the question which arises for consideration is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, can legal representative of deceased Murari Lal (Judgment debtor) have any

legal right to be substituted in the execution proceedings initiated against unauthorized occupant and whether right to sue survives to the L.Rs of the Judgment debtor or not.

¶32Under order 22 of the Code, it is only when the right to sue survives, the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff or defendant are brought on record. If the right to sue does not survive, the Civil Procedure Code does not provide for any legal representative coming on record.

¶33In Bullard Grace (supra) it was observed that:- "As the legal representative of the judgment-debtor, cannot have better rights than the judgment-debtor."

¶34Since, Judgment debtor was held to be an unauthorized occupant and not a tenant in the shop in dispute, the present petitioner being L.R. of deceased Murari Lal (Judgment debtor) cannot have any better right or title than that of an unauthorized occupant. Petitioner also being unauthorized occupant, has got no legal right to get substituted in the execution proceedings. The court below, rightly dismissed the objections of petitioner under Section 47 of the Code.

¶35None of the judgments cited by learned counsel for petitioner are applicable to the facts of the present case.

¶36It is well settled that frivolous litigation clogs the wheels of justice making it difficult for courts to provide easy and speedy justice to genuine litigants. It has also been observed in large number of cases that meritless litigation should be dealt with heavy hands. Any litigant who indulges in mindless litigation and unnecessarily waste the precious time of the Courts should not be spared. He must pay heavy costs for wasting time of the Court.

¶37In Sardar Estates (supra), the Supreme Court observed; "7. It is evident that frivolous objections have been filed in the execution case which is an abuse of the process of the Court and a flagrant violation of the eviction decree against the appellant against which Appeals had been rejected and even SLP in this Court was dismissed.

¶8It is evident that after the first round of litigation was over the tenant started a second round of litigation on frivolous grounds which was a flagrant abuse of the Court. This is a practice which has become widespread, and which the Court cannot approve off, otherwise no judgment will ever attain finality."

¶38In the present case due to frivolous objections filed firstly, by the Objector-Sh. Dheeraj Ram (brother of Murari Lal-Judgment-debtor) and then objections under Section 47 of the Code filed by present petitioner (s/o Murari Lal-Judgment debtor) respondent has been denied the fruits of decree which was passed more than 30 years back, that is, on 31st January, 1979. The judgment of the trial court passing decree of possession in favour of respondent was upheld even by the Supreme Court.

¶39Thus, present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is nothing but gross abuse of process of law. A strong message is required to be sent to those litigants who are in the habit of filing bogus and frivolous objections in the execution proceedings and thereafter deprive the decree holder fruits of the decree passed in their favour. Petitioner herein, have left no stone unturned to deprive the fruits of decree to the decree holder, in the suit filed in the year 1975.

¶40Since, there is no illegality, infirmity or error in the impugned order, present petition being most bogus and frivolous

one having no legal force, is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only).

¶41Out of this cost of Rs.1,00,000/-, petitioner shall pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) as cost to Sh. Sunder Singh, respondent No.1 (Decree holder) by way of demand draft in his favour. Balance amount of the cost shall be deposited by way of cross cheque in the name of Registrar General of this Court. These costs be deposited within a period of four weeks from today.

¶42After deposit of the costs by the petitioner, the decree holder should be paid the same, only after expiry of the period of appeal/revision preferred, if any. CM No. 13399/2010

¶43Dismissed.

¶44List for compliance on 28th October, 2010.

September 24, 2010

V.B.GUPTA, J. ab/mw

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI CM (M) No. 970/2010 & CM No. 13399/2010 % Judgment reserved on: 14th September, 2010 Judgment delivered on: 24th September, 2010 Mr. Murari Lal (Deceased) (Through Shri Pawan Kumar Arora, Legal heir & Son) 720-A, Shop No. 3, Ashok Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. ….Petitioner. Through: Mr. V. P. Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mukul Dhawan, Adv. Versus 1. Shri Sunder Singh & Another, Son of Shri Gurdit Singh, Resident of House No. 4. Mahila Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. 2. Shri Balbir Singh, Son of Shri Gurdit Singh, Resident of House No. F-11/35, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. ….Respondents Through: Mr. Amarjit Singh, Adv. for respondent no.1 Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes V.B.Gupta, J. Courts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgment debtor to deny the decree holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. These type of errors on the part of the judicial forums only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing law"s delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system. (Ravinder Kaur vs. Ashok Kumar, AIR 2004 SC 904) 2. Above observations made by Supreme Court are fully applicable in this case. 3. As per facts of the present case, in 1975 Sh.Sunder Singh, decree holder (respondent No.1 herein) filed a suit for possession by way of mandatory injunction against Shri Murari Lal (since deceased). Decree holder claimed that he is owner of House No. 720-A situated in Ashok Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, which also included five shops. Out of which, shop no. 1 was rented to Shri Murari Lal at a monthly rent of Rs.45/-. Shop No. 3 was lying vacant. 4. On or about 01.05.1975, Shri Murari Lal requested decree holder to allow him to store goods for a temporary period of ten days. After expiry of said period, Shri Murari Lal became unauthorized occupant of the said shop and refused to vacate the same. 5. It was claimed by Shri Murari Lal that he was a tenant in shop no. 3 at a monthly rent of Rs.45/-. He further claimed that suit was bad for non joinder of necessary parties as possession of suit property was with M/s. Chand Colour mart, a partnership firm. He further alleged that it was an oral tenancy and decree holder failed to issue any rent receipt. 6. Trial court framed the following issues; 1) Whether the defendant is unauthorized occupant of the suit property, if so, its effect? 2) Whether the defendant is a tenant in respect of the suit property? 3) Relief. 7. That suit was decreed in favour of decree holder, vide judgment dated 31st January, 1979, holding that Shri Murari Lal was an unauthorized occupant and not a tenant with respect to shop no. 3 in dispute. Sh. Murari Lal was also directed to hand over the vacant possession of the shop, within two months of passing of the decree. 8. The aforesaid findings of the trial court were upheld by this Court and also by Supreme Court. 9. Thereafter, second round of litigation started as Shri Dheeraj Ram (brother of deceased Murari Lal) filed objections under Order 21 Rule 97, 98 & 99 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short as "Code"). During pendency of the objections, objector died and his wife filed an application for being impleaded and after her death, daughter of late Sh. Dheeraj Ram (Ms. Avnish Malhotra) was brought on record. 10. Trial court after framing issues and after recording evidence, vide order dated 17th August, 2009, dismissed the objections with special damages of Rs.3,000/-. 11. Aggrieved by the order of Civil Judge, legal heirs of deceased Shri Dheeraj Ram, filed an appeal which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Delhi on 4th March, 2010 with cost of Rs.10,000/-. Costs as awarded by executing court as well as by the appellate court, have not yet been paid. Thus, second round of litigation came to an end on 4