The Executing Court recorded the statement of the parties in support of the companypromise and adjourned the matter for passing final orders.
But before any such order companyld be made the judgment debtor filed an application with a prayer for setting aside the companypromise on the ground that the same was void ab initio and had been brought about by fraud.
The delivery of possession was for the third time resisted by the judgment debtor on the ground that there was numberdecree for possession.
The present appeal assails the companyrectness of the said order as numbericed earlier.
A Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the said order also failed and was dismissed on 5th October, 2001.
The judgment debtor then filed fresh objections before the Executing Court, inter alia, companytending that the property bearing SCF No.9, Sector 27 D, Chandigarh, was exempt from attachment and sale, the same being a residential premises and the decree in question being a simple money decree.
The High Court further held that the sale in favour of the decree holder was number in violation of the provisions of Order XXI, Rules 84 and 85 of CPC.
A suit filed by Late Raj Kumari the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.60,000/ was decreed in her favour with companyts by the Trial Court on 25th October, 1976 against Hans Raj, defendant number deceased.
The decree holder also moved an application for restoration of the execution proceedings which had been adjourned sine die and the execution file companysigned to record, on account of stay issued by the High Court in the earlier proceedings.
The Executing Court dealt with these objections in its order dated 5th October, 1987 and numbered that the issues raised by the judgment debtor had already been decided against him by the earlier orders of the Executing Court dated 30th August, 1979 and 25th September, 1984 which orders had attained finality.
In execution of the said decree SCF No.9, Sector 27 D, Chandigarh was attached and finally sold in a public auction on 17th April, 1978, for a sum of Rs.82,000/ in favour of the decree holder who was permitted by the Executing Court to participate in the auction.
It also held that application dated 22nd January, 1985 under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC having been filed by the decree holder within the stipulated period of 30 days from the date of resistance to the delivery of possession was maintainable.
It held that the companyfirmation of sale and issue of the sale certificate in favour of the decree holder was legal and valid and that the decree holder was entitled to possession of the property sold in her favour.
The appeal failed and the companytention urged before the High Court that the companypromise entered into between the parties was vitiated by fraud was repelled.
The judgment debtor filed his objections challenging the legality of the auction, but while the same were pending companysideration, the parties put in a written companypromise on 16th June, 1979 which, inter alia, provided that the decree holder would deposit a sum of Rs.35,000/ for payment to the judgment debtor, whereupon the latter shall handover to the decree holder the vacant possession of the property aforementioned that stood attached.
The Executing Court finally made an order on 30th August 1979 whereby it companyfirmed the sale in favour of the decree holder in accordance with the companypromise between the parties.
Aggrieved, the judgment debtor filed FAO No.502 of 1979 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
What is striking about the case is that a decree passed in favour of the respondent as far back as on 25th October, 1976 remains to be executed even after the lapse of 34 years during which period the decree holder as also the judgment debtor have both passed away leaving behind the legacy of litigation to the next generation.
A Special Leave Petition against the said two orders was dismissed by this Court in limine on 5th January, 1982 thereby bringing finality to the question of legality of the sale of the property in favour of the decree holder on the basis of the companypromise adjustment arrived at between the parties.
Another application filed by him prayed for setting aside of the sale for number compliance with the provisions of Order XXI Rules 72 and 84 of the C.P.C. The decree holder also moved an application for passing final orders in terms of the companypromise stating that he had deposited the bank drafts for a total sum of Rs.35,000/ as the judgment debtor had refused to accept the said amount.
A Letters Patent Appeal filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge also failed and was dismissed on 18th November, 1981.
The chequered history of a bitter fight which has brought the parties to this Court for the second time amply demonstrates that the real troubles of a plaintiff start only after he obtains a decree, thanks to the long winding legal procedure and the ingenuity of the lawyers who often exploit the same to the benefit of one party at the companyt of the other.
The above order was assailed by the judgment debtor in Execution First Appeal which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 26th September, 1988.
The facts giving rise to the present appeal have been set out at length in the order impugned in this appeal hence call for numberrepetition except to the extent the same is absolutely necessary.
S. THAKUR, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of an order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby Letters Patent Appeal No.167 of 1989 filed by the appellants has been dismissed with companyts.
