Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1222 (PNJ)

Anokh Singh v. Nachhattar Singh

2005-11-30

S.S.SARON

body2005
Judgment S.S.Saron, J. 1. This execution second appeal has been filed against the order dated 15.6.1985 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge Patiala whereby the appeal of the appellants against the order dated 10.9.1983 passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class Nabha has been dismissed. 2. The facts leading to the case are that Nachhattar Singh (respondent No. 1) and Mohan Singh (respondent No. 2) (hereinafter referred to as a decree-holders) filed a suit on 30.10.1971 for permanent injunction against Jagdev Singh (respondent No. 4) Harpal Singh (respondent No. 5) Sukhdev Singh (respondent No. 6) and one Jagir Singh (hereinafter referred to as the judgment-debtors) restraining them from interfering in their peaceful possession over agricultural land measuring 208 Kanals 4 marlas situated in the area of village Akalgarh. The suit of the decree-holders was decreed against the judgment-debtors on 13.5.1974. The appeal preferred by the judgment-debtors was dismissed on 7.2.1977. As a consequence of the decree passed in the said suit the judgment-debtors were restrained from interfering in the said agricultural land measuring 208 Kanals 4 marlas. However despite that the judgment-debtors violated the injunction order. Consequently the decree-holders on 18.3.1977 filed an application under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC-for short) seeking enforcement of the injunction order. The said application was allowed by the Executing Court on 30.4.1979 and accordingly on 18.5.1979 the land of judgment-debtors was ordered to be attached and put to sale to enforce the compliance of the decree dated 13.5.1974 for permanent injunction in favour of the decree-holders. The judgment-debtors however submitted an unqualified apology and on 29.1.1980 it was stated by the counsel for Sukhdev Singh (respondent No. 6) and Harpal Singh (respondent No. 5) that the judgment-debtors are not interfering in the peaceful possession of the decree-holders in respect of the land in dispute and as such are not disobeying the decree. It was stated that they shall also not interfere in the peaceful possession of the decree-holders in future. As a consequence of the said statement the execution application filed under Order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C. was dismissed and consigned to the record room on 29.1.1980. 3. The case of the decree-holders is that despite the said undertaking given by the judgment-debtors they continued to flout the decree for permanent injunction and consequently a second application under Order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C. was filed on 2.4.1980. 3. The case of the decree-holders is that despite the said undertaking given by the judgment-debtors they continued to flout the decree for permanent injunction and consequently a second application under Order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C. was filed on 2.4.1980. The decree-holders prayed for detaining the judgment-debtors in civil prison and putting the property that was attached on 18.5.1979 to sale as even after making a categoric statement before the Court they still attempted to disobey the decree threatening to dispossess the decree-holders from the suit land. The judgment-debtors denied the assertions made in the application. The learned Sub Judge 1st Class Nabha i.e. the Executing Court disposed of the said application by holding that the disobedience of the decree the execution of which was sought cannot be prevented except by putting to auction the land of the judgment-debtors earlier attached on 18.5.1979 as despite lapse of a period of six months the judgment-debtors were still threatening to disobey the same. Accordingly on 19.2.1981 the attached land was ordered to be put to sale in which a time schedule was drawn up and date of sale was given as 3.4.1981. The judgment-debtors aggrieved against the order dated 19.2.1981 filed civil revision No. 852 of 1981 in this Court which was dismissed on 6.4.1981. The judgment-debtors thereafter filed further objections with regard to attachment and the Executing Court in conjunction with the order dated 19.2.1981 passed an order dated 20.5.1981. The objections were against the sale which was to be conducted on 26.5.1981. The primary objection was that an earlier execution application had been dismissed and therefore the attachment of the property ceased in view of Order 21 Rule 57 C.P.C. as such the property was required to be reattached before it was ordered to be put to sale. The second objection was that no notice under Order 21 Rule 66 C.P.C. was issued to the JDs before ordering the attached property to be put to sale. The next objection was that about 150 Kanals of land of the JDs was ordered to be sold and this was disproportionate for the satisfaction of the decree. Lastly that the judgment debtors were not disobeying the decree of injunction dated 13.5.1974 and no action could be taken against them under Order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C. Therefore it was requested that the sale fixed for 26.5.1981 be stopped. Lastly that the judgment debtors were not disobeying the decree of injunction dated 13.5.1974 and no action could be taken against them under Order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C. Therefore it was requested that the sale fixed for 26.5.1981 be stopped. The Executing Court in terms of its order dated 20.5.1981 disposed of the objections. No merit was found in the contention of the judgment-debtors that they had not disobeyed the decree for injunction and that therefore no action was liable to be taken against them under Order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C. This aspect has been determined vide earlier order dated 19.2.1981 and the Executing Court it was observed could not go behind the same. Besides no merit was found in the contention that the attachment ceased and a fresh attachment was required to be made in view of Order 21 Rule 57 C.P.C. as the earlier execution application was not dismissed and the attached property was not released from attachment. However merit was found in the contention that a notice was required to be served on the judgment debtors before the attached property was put to sale in terms of Order 21 Rule 66 C.P.C. which was not issued. Another infirmity that was noticed in the earlier order dated 19.2.1981 was that it had not been stated therein as to how much amount by way of compensation was to be given to the decree holders out of the sale proceeds to be realised from the sale of the property of the judgment-debtors. Land measuring 119 Kanals 17 Marias of the judgment-debtors out of the sale proceeds to be realised from the sale of the property of the judgment-debtors. Land measuring 119 Kanals 17 Marias of the judgment-debtors was attached and this entire land had been ordered to be sold. The approximate value of this land was over Rs. 1 lac. The decree holders in their application in fact had only claimed compensation to the extent of Rs. 15000/-. Therefore it was observed that the land to be sold was quite disproportionate to satisfy the amount of Rs. 15000/- only. The order dated 19.2.1981 had not determined as to how much compensation was to be awarded to the decree holders. However in terms of Order dated 20.5.1981 the decree holders were allowed Rs. 15000/-. Therefore it was observed that the land to be sold was quite disproportionate to satisfy the amount of Rs. 15000/- only. The order dated 19.2.1981 had not determined as to how much compensation was to be awarded to the decree holders. However in terms of Order dated 20.5.1981 the decree holders were allowed Rs. 15000/- as compensation and the balance if any was to be paid to the judgment debtors on their application. It was directed that the parties under Order 21 Rule 66 C.P.C. would furnish such Khasra numbers of the attached property as would be sufficient to satisfy the amount of compensation of Rs. 15000/- to be paid to the decree-holders. The sale of the property fixed for 26.5.1981 was stopped under Order 21 Rule 69 C.P.C. and the warrants of sale already issued were recalled. The sale was fixed for moving an application by the decree holders under Order 21 Rule 66 C.P.C. for 28.5.1981. Thereafter the learned Executing Court on 9.9.1982 disposed of two applications filed under Order 21 Rule 66 C.P.C. by the decree-holders and another filed by the judgment-debtors under Order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C. The application under Order 21 Rule 66 C.P.C. was filed by the decree holder in terms of the order dated 20.5.1981 passed by the Executing Court. The sale of the property was however resisted by the judgment-debtors. The judgment-debtors in their application under Order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C. contended that the application of the decree holders had become infructuous as the land had been attached by the S.D.M. Nabha under Section 145 Cr.P.C. No merit was found in the objections filed by the judgment debtors. The application of the judgment-debtors was dismissed and that of the decree holders under Order 21 Rule 66 C.P.C. was allowed. The land measuring 31 Kanals 4 Marias comprised in Khasra Nos.32/19 20 21 and 22 as per jamabandi for the year 1975-76 was ordered to be sold for recovery of amount of Rs. 15000/- for which the sale was ordered. A fresh time schedule was drawn up and sale was to be effected on 9.11.1982. Against the said order dated 9.9.1982 passed by the Executing Court the judgment-debtors filed a civil revision i.e. C.R. No. 2956 of 1982 in this Court in which initially stay was granted but later the revision petition was dismissed on 27.1.1983. A fresh time schedule was drawn up and sale was to be effected on 9.11.1982. Against the said order dated 9.9.1982 passed by the Executing Court the judgment-debtors filed a civil revision i.e. C.R. No. 2956 of 1982 in this Court in which initially stay was granted but later the revision petition was dismissed on 27.1.1983. In view of the dismissal of the civil revision petition filed by the judgment-debtors the Executing Court on 29.3.1983 observed that in spite of the fact that civil revision petition filed by the judgment-debtors had been dismissed they had failed to satisfy the decree under execution. Therefore their immovable property under attachment was liable to be put to sale. Accordingly warrant of sale was issued for 4.5.1983 to be reported back on 7.5.1983. On 7.5.1983 it was observed by the Executing Court that warrant of sale had been received back with the report that on one had come forth to bid at the auction. However the decree holder who was present in Court submitted that there were persons available and ready to bid and purchase the land under attachment through an open auction but the concerned Tehsildar had at once carried back to avoid the sale. Notice was issued to the Tehsildar and warrant of sale was again issued for 12.5.1983. One day before the sale i.e. on 11.5.1983 Anokh Singh appellant-objector (since deceased and now represented by his LRs. Smt. Jaswant Kaur etc.) filed an application dated 12.4.1983 on 11.5.1983 alleging that the decree holders had got his land measuring 31 Kanals 4 Marias in village Akalgarh attached Showing that the same belongs to the judgment-debtors who in fact had got no concern with the said land. Notice was issued to the other party for 12.5.1983 on which date it was ordered to be put up for consideration for 19.5.1983. On 19.5.1983 the decree holder filed an application dated 18.5.1983 to the effect that the objector Anokh Singh be directed to produce the title deeds regarding the disputed land which was ordered to be produced by the Executing Court on 31.5.1983. The case was then adjourned from time to time and on 23.7.1983 decree sheet dated 18.1.1978 passed in Civil Suit No. 510 dated 8.9.1977 in favour of Anokh Singh objector was submitted before the Executing Court. The case was then adjourned from time to time and on 23.7.1983 decree sheet dated 18.1.1978 passed in Civil Suit No. 510 dated 8.9.1977 in favour of Anokh Singh objector was submitted before the Executing Court. In the meanwhile however on 12.5.1983 in the open auction that was held Joga Singh (respondent No. 7) purchased the said land for a sum of Rs. 16600/-. In any case the objections of the objector Anokh Singh were dismissed by the Executing Court i.e. the Sub Judge 1st Class Nabha on 10.9.1983. Anokh Singh-objector filed an appeal before the District Judge Patiala and his appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge Patiala on 15.6.1985. The said order dated 15.6.1985 is assailed in his execution second appeal. 4. Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, the learned Counsel appearing for the successors-in-interest of the objector-appellant Anokh Singh submits that the objector-appellant is owner in possession of 2 parcels of land in pursuance of a valid decree which was passed in his favour on 18.1.1978 and that this in respect of land measuring 31 Kanals 4 marlas and another parcel of land measuring 47 kanals 4 marlas. It is contended that in terms of Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. issues were liable to be framed in respect of the matters in issues and in terms of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 58 to Order 21 C.P.C. it is envisaged that all questions relating to right title or interest in the property that has been attached and arising between the parties to the proceedings or their representatives and relevant to the adjudication of the claim or objection shall be determined by the Court dealing with the claim or objection and not by a separate suit. Therefore it is contended that the objector-appellant was entitled to have his objections decided after leading evidence and making his claim. Besides it is contended that the effect of the decree dated 18.1.1978 cannot be nullified or ignored in a collateral proceedings in a summary manner by the Executing Court. It is also contended that the judgment-debtors have also another piece of land and the amount of Rs. 15000/- payable to the decree-holders could be satisfied by sale of that land and not by sale of the land of the objector. 5. In response Mr. It is also contended that the judgment-debtors have also another piece of land and the amount of Rs. 15000/- payable to the decree-holders could be satisfied by sale of that land and not by sale of the land of the objector. 5. In response Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 7, who is (16 times) the auction purchaser of the land has strongly opposed the contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellants. It is contended that issues arising between the parties are not required to be framed as the Court had already held an enquiry as is the requirement and intent of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. It is also contended that where parties are alive to the dispute and to the controversy between them the necessity for framing issues pales into insignificance. It is further contended that in fact the judgment-debtors and the objector are one and the same person inasmuch as the objector is the father-in-law of Jagdev Singh (respondent No. 4) and the other two judgment-debtors namely Harpal Singh (respondent No. 5) and Sukhdev Singh (respondent No. 6) are the brothers of said Jagdev Singh. Therefore it is contended that the objector all along knew about the nature of the proceedings and he deliberately kept quiet. It is also contended that even the judgment-debtors were aware of the fact that they had suffered a collusive decree dated 18.1.1979 in favour of the objector-appellant and yet they did not disclose this fact. In fact the decree-holder Nachhattar Singh (respondent No. 1) filed an application on 18.5.1983 under Order 11 Rule 14 read with Section 151 C.P.C. asking the objector to produce his title deeds qua the land that was attached in the Court. The said prayer of decree-holder Nachhattar Singh (respondent No. 1) was allowed by the Executing Court on 19.5.1983. After taking three adjournments copy of the decree sheet dated 18.1.1973 was filed on 23.7.1983. Therefore it is contended that the entire facts and circumstances were before the Courts below and as such it cannot be said that the Courts have not held a proper inquiry as contemplated by the provisions of Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. It is also contended that the consent decree dated 18.1.1978 is in fact the result of fraud and collusion and therefore is a nullity which confers no right on the objector-appellant. It is also contended that the objector-appellant has no pre-existing right in the property that has been decreed in his favour and therefore the same was done only as a motive to avoid the payment of compensation of the decree holders. Therefore it is contended that the appeal of the appellants is liable to be dismissed and the sale made in favour of the respondent No. 7, on 12.5.1983 is liable to be upheld and maintained. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. It may appropriately be noticed that the learned Counsel below have dismissed the objections of the objector-appellant by holding that the consent decree is not a valid decree and that the objector is not entitled to any protection on the basis of the same as it is in violation of the law. The trial court observed that the objectors objections have been filed mala fide and merely at the instance of the judgment-debtor Jagdev Singh (respondent No. 4) with an intent to delay the execution of the lawful decree against the judgment debtors which even otherwise constitutes an abuse of the court process. The said findings of the Executing Court have been upheld by the learned Additional District Judge in terms of his impugned order dated 15.6.1985. It was observed that the objector-appellant could not have been declared as owner of the land on the basis of an oral mortgage deed and subsequently oral sale consideration of Rs. 15000/- which is against the express mandate of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 and the Indian Registration Act 1908. The decree dated 18.1.1978 it was observed did not confer any right on the objector. 7. The strong contention that has been raised by the learned Counsel for the objectors-appellants on the strength of the judgments passed in Avtar Singh v. Gurjeet Kaur (1996-3) 114 P.L.R. 567 and Punjab and Sind Bank v. Shankar Dass and Co. (2000-3) 126 P.L.R. 139 is that issues were liable to be framed to effectively determine the rights of the objector-appellant and therefore the order passed for want of framing issues is a nullity. (2000-3) 126 P.L.R. 139 is that issues were liable to be framed to effectively determine the rights of the objector-appellant and therefore the order passed for want of framing issues is a nullity. In the case in hand it is appropriate to note that in fact the objector-appellant and the judgment-debtors were not strangers inter se inasmuch as objector-appellant is the father-in-law of one of the judgment-debtors namely Jagdev Singh (respondent No. 4) and the other two judgment debtors namely Harpal Singh and Sukhdev Singh are the brothers of Jagdev Singh therefore it cannot at all be said that the objector-appellant was unaware of the litigation that had been pending. Besides whatever rights accrued to him (Anokh Singh objector) in pursuance of the consent judgment and decree dated 18.1.1978 steps for enforcing the same were not immediately taken by Anokh Singh the predecessor-in-interest of the objectors-appellants. In fact the decree was passed in favour of the objector-appellant on 18.1.1978 and the attachment was ordered subsequently on 30.4.1979. However it is evident that Anokh Singh was playing hide and seek in collusion with the judgment-debtors. In the circumstances the mere non-framing of issues would not in any way affect the adjudication of the case or merits. Besides the parties were fully alive to the matter in controversy and it is a matter of fact that the consent decree dated 18.1.1978 was to be considered by the Executing Court and same has been duly considered by the Executing Court as also by the learned lower appellate Court. It is appropriate to note that the dispute between the parties with respect to the land in question has been pending since 30.10.1971 i.e. when initially the decree holders Nachhattar Singh and Mohan Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction against the judgment-debtors. The judgment-debtors have been violating and disobeying the decree that was passed in the said suit on 13.5.1974. Therefore the decree dated 18.1.1978 on which objector Anokh Singh had based his claim and had been suffered by the judgment-debtors in collusion with him cannot be relied upon as Anokh Singh objector is admittedly the father-in-law of one of the judgment-debtors namely Jagdev Singh (respondent No. 4). Therefore the decree dated 18.1.1978 on which objector Anokh Singh had based his claim and had been suffered by the judgment-debtors in collusion with him cannot be relied upon as Anokh Singh objector is admittedly the father-in-law of one of the judgment-debtors namely Jagdev Singh (respondent No. 4). The learned Executing Court rightly observed that there was no bona fide dispute between the parties giving rise to a cause of action to the objector Anokh Singh to file the suit against the judgment debtors and obtain the decree dated 18.1.1978. Therefore it was held that the said decree cannot be held to be binding or effective against the decree holders in the present case. It was observed by the Executing Court that the decree dated 18.1.1978 in favour of Anokh Singh objector was not the outcome of any family settlement and that such a decree would even amount to playing fraud on the Court and constitutes an abuse of the process of law which cannot be sustained nor allowed to stand in the execution of a lawful decree against the judgment debtors. The stand taken by the Anokh Singh in his plaint in suit No. 510 of 8.9.1977 which was decreed on 18.1.1978 was that about 5/6 years ago the defendants in the said suit i.e. the present judgment debtors had mortgaged with possession the land for Rs. 15000/- and two years later by receiving another sum of Rs. 15000/- from the defendants they had orally agreed to transfer the same in his (Anokh Singhs) favour and relinquished all there claims over the land. Therefore evidently Anokh Singh did not claim the land in question by way of a family settlement but based his claim on the basis of oral transactions which are impermissible in law. The objector-appellant Anokh Singh evidently could not be declared owner of the land in a suit based merely on the basis of an oral mortgage and subsequently an oral sale for consideration of Rs. 15000/-. This is apparently against the express provisions of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 and the Indian Registration Act 1908. Therefore the said decree dated 18.1.1978 did not confer any right on the objector Anokh Singh. 15000/-. This is apparently against the express provisions of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 and the Indian Registration Act 1908. Therefore the said decree dated 18.1.1978 did not confer any right on the objector Anokh Singh. This Court in Chand Kaur v. Raj Kaur (1996-3) 114 P.L.R. 523 considered the effect of a collusive decree in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major and Ors. (1996-1) 112 P.L.R. 559 wherein it has been held that it is the duty of the Court to examine in each case whether the parties have a pre-existing right to the immovable property or whether under the order or decree of the Court one party having right title or interest therein agreed or suffered to extinguish the same and created right title or interest in praesenti in immovable property of the value of Rs. 100/- or upwards in favour of the other party for the first time either by compromise or pretended consent. If latter be the position the document is compulsory registerable. It was held in Chand Kaurs case (supra) where the compromise decree was set up for the first time in respect of an immovable property which values more than Rs. 100/- such decree would attract the payment of appropriate stamp duty and would be hit by Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. Besides it was held by the Supreme Court in Ram Chander Singh v. Savitri Devi and Ors. that the right of a third party cannot be set at naught by a consent order. It was also held therein that fraud as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. Therefore the Executing Court and thereafter the Appellate Court having considered the effect of the concerned decree dated 18.1.1978 it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the objector-appellant on account of not being granted an effective opportunity to lead his evidence that he may be wanting to lead or that the issues were not framed. Therefore the Executing Court and thereafter the Appellate Court having considered the effect of the concerned decree dated 18.1.1978 it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the objector-appellant on account of not being granted an effective opportunity to lead his evidence that he may be wanting to lead or that the issues were not framed. Although in normal course issues are liable to be framed for the determination of the matters between the parties but where the parties are alive to the dispute between them the mere fact that issues have not been framed would not vitiate the orders validly passed by the Courts below especially when no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the appellants. The ultimate test is one of prejudice. In case of prejudice the same would have to be remedied. However no prejudice of any kind is made out as the contentions of the appellants have been considered by both the Courts below. 8. The question however that still requires to be considered is whether the executing court in collateral proceedings can consider the effect of a decree passed between the parties by way of consent. In this respect it may appropriately be noticed that the said decree is final and binding between the parties inter se. However it cannot be enforced or invoked to affect the third party rights which have accrued in favour of the auction purchaser in the present case. In the circumstances I am of the view that the effect of the decree dated 18.1.1978 suffered by consent would not effect the rights of the auction purchaser in the case in hand even though it may be binding inter se the parties to the decree. Therefore this contention of the learned Counsel for the objector-appellant is without much force. 9. In the ultimate analysis it is appropriate to note that in fact the objector-appellant and the judgment-debtors are one and the same inasmuch as Anokh Singh who originally filed the objections is the father-in-law of Jagdev Singh (respondent No. 4) who is one of the judgment-debtors in the case and the other two judgment debtors namely Harpal Singh and Sukhdev Singh are his brothers. It is also a matter of fact that the judgment debtors in collusion with Anokh Singh objector had been avoiding the execution of the decree of permanent injunction passed against them on 13.5.1974. The decree holder had claimed a sum of Rs. 15000/- for the execution of the decree and for that purpose the land measuring 31 Kanals 4 Marias was put to auction by sale for recovery of Rs. 15000/-. This land was purchased by the auction purchaser Joga Singh (respondent No. 7) in an open auction on 12.5.1983. The question however that has weighed with his court is with regard to the gravity of the liability which the appellants and the judgment debtors would have to suffer. It is appropriate to note that the land that has been purchased by respondent No. 7, measures 31 kanals and 4 marlas which was purchased for a sum of Rs. 16600/- on 12.5.1983. At that time the objector Anokh Singh had filed his objections before the Executing Court on 11.5.1983. Therefore the auction purchaser must have had some knowledge of the nature of objections being raised even though they may be frivolous. In any case it is not a case where the land holders should be deprived of their property at this stage for a sum of Rs. 16600/-. However the respondent No. 7, has also been litigating all these years and his rights are also to be protected. Therefore a process of balancing the rights of each party is warranted by moulding the relief that is to be granted. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 7, has though laid great emphasis on the fact that the amount of Rs. 16600/- was the market price of the land at the time of purchase and therefore the auction purchaser should not be non suited on the ground that the land which is to be given to him in terms of the sale is not commensurate with the value of the land. It may be noticed that at the preliminary motion hearing stage on 18.7.1985 while issuing notice of motion this Court had stayed dispossession and it was recorded in the order that the learned Counsel for the appellants was willing to pay the entire decretal amount to the decree-holder in lumpsum. Therefore the appeal was admitted on 10.9.1985 and the ad interim stay was confirmed. Therefore the appeal was admitted on 10.9.1985 and the ad interim stay was confirmed. During the pendency of the appeal the respondent No. 7, filed CM. No. 2956-CI of 1985 claiming mesne profits and the same was disposed of on 7.11.1985 with an order that the appellants may continue in possession of the land subject to their furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Executing Court for an amount equivalent to 18% of Rs. 16600/- for 3 years within 2 months from 7.11.1985. The appellants filed CM. No. 3594-C of 1986 seeking extension of time for furnishing the security. The application was disposed of on 9.1.1987 and one months time from the said date was granted to furnish security for the mesne profit in view of the earlier order passed by this Court Both the learned Counsel are not aware whether necessary security has been furnished to the satisfaction of the Executing Court. However this aspect is now not of much relevance as the appeal itself is being disposed of. The judgment debtors in collusion with the appellants though have been making persistent defaults and have been playing hide and seek. However I am of the view that the gravity of their misconduct is quite disproportionate to what they are going to suffer for violation of the injunction order. The provisions of Section 151 C.P.C. provide for saying of inherent powers of the Court and it is envisaged that nothing in the Code i.e. the C.P.C. shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. The liability in the facts and circumstances of the case which the objectors and the judgment debtors are to suffer is not to be disproportionate to the gravity of the acts or the misconduct committed by them. To put in other words excessive force is not to be applied to achieve a given end. In the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that excessive force has been applied which is disproportionate to the gravity of the acts that has been committed by the objector-appellant and the judgment-debtors. To put in other words excessive force is not to be applied to achieve a given end. In the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that excessive force has been applied which is disproportionate to the gravity of the acts that has been committed by the objector-appellant and the judgment-debtors. It would be unfair if at this stage they are asked to hand over possession of land measuring 31 kanals 4 marlas for the a sum of Rs. 16600/- and that too for the default of an order of disobedience of an injunction order. The value of the property has considerably increased over the last several years. However it is equally true that the judgment-debtors and/or the appellants have enjoyed the fruits of the land for all these years and they have been cultivating the same. The value of the land as on date which has been stated by the learned Counsel is approximately about Rs. 20 to 22 lakhs. For the objectors and/or the judgment debtors at this stage to be deprived of this property for a sum of Rs. 16600/- would be improper and unfair. In fact it may be noticed that the Executing Court on 20.5.1981 had noticed that in an earlier order dated 19.2.1981 it had not been stated therein as to how much amount by way of compensation was to be given to the decree holders out of the sale proceeds to be realized from the sale of the property of the judgment debtors and land measuring 119 Kanals 17 Marias of the judgment debtors was attached and this entire land had been ordered to be sold. The approximate value of this land at that time was observed to be over Rs.l lac. The decree holders in their application in fact had only claimed compensation to the extent of Rs. 15000/-. Therefore it was observed that the land to be sold was quite disproportionate to satisfy the amount of Rs. 15000/- only and that the order dated 19.2.1981 had not determined as to how much compensation was to be awarded to the decree holders. However in terms of Order dated 20.5.1981 the decree holders were allowed Rs. 15000/- as compensation and the balance if any was to be paid to the judgment debtors on their application. 15000/- only and that the order dated 19.2.1981 had not determined as to how much compensation was to be awarded to the decree holders. However in terms of Order dated 20.5.1981 the decree holders were allowed Rs. 15000/- as compensation and the balance if any was to be paid to the judgment debtors on their application. It was directed that the parties under Order 21 Rule 66 C.P.C. would furnish such Khasra numbers of the attached property as would be sufficient to satisfy the amount of compensation of Rs. 15000/- to be paid to the decree-holders. The sale of the property fixed for 26.5.1981 was stopped under Order 21 Rule 69 C.P.C. and the warrants of sale already issued were recalled. As such it is evident that the claim of the decree holders was for being paid a sum of Rs. 15000/-. The property in question that is land measuring 31 Kanals 4 Marias has been auctioned in favour of Respondent No. 7, on 12.5.1983. Therefore in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and exercising the inherent powers of this Court under Section 151 C.P.C. I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the appellants-objectors and/or the judgment debtors pay a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs to the respondent No. 7, and the order under appeal is modified to this extent. 10. Consequently this appeal is disposed of with the direction that the objectors-appellants and/or the judgment debtors shall deposit a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs before the Executing Court within a period of one year from today i.e. by 30.11.2006. In case the objectors-appellants and/or the judgment debtors fail to pay the amount the order of the Executing Court as affirmed by the lower appellate Court shall become operative. The appellants-objectors and/or the judgment debtors shall also file necessary undertaking to pay the amount before the Executing Court within a period of 15 days of the receipt of certified copy of the order. With the giving of undertaking and deposit of the amount all other claims and objectors inter se between the parties shall stand determined and nothing shall remain due to each other. Besides the objectors and the judgment debtors shall not interfere with the possession of the land in respect of the decree for permanent injunction that had been passed in favour of the decree-holders 13.5.1974. Besides the objectors and the judgment debtors shall not interfere with the possession of the land in respect of the decree for permanent injunction that had been passed in favour of the decree-holders 13.5.1974. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.