Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 349 (CHH)

SHABBIR HUSSAIN v. AHMED HUSSAIN

2006-07-05

S.K.SINHA

body2006
ORAL ORDER As per Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. :- 1. Heard finally with the consent of the parties as the parties are duly represented by their counsel. 2. This revision is directed against the order dated 6.3 .2006 passed by the First Civil Judge, Class-I, Bilaspur in Execution case No.240-A/1996 pending in his Court. A perusal of the order would show that in a proceeding of execution of decree, filed by the respondents before the Executing Court, the applicants filed threefold objection as follows :- (i) That the execution proceedings are barred by limitation as the decree had become final on 9.7.1981 and it was not put for execution within a period of 12 years from the said date. (ii) That all the necessary parties have not been added as the parties in the execution proceedings. (iii) The petition for execution does not contain particulars in accordance with law. 3. These objections were dismissed by the Executing Court, by passing 2-3 lines order in following manner: ^^izdj.k esa tks vkifÙk izLrqr dh xbZ gS ml laca/k esa laiw.kZ izdj.k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA izdj.k ds voyksdu ds i”pkr~ vkifÙk fcuk fdlh vk/kkj ds gksuk izrhr gks jgk gS blfy, vkifÙk Lohdkj fd, tkuks dk dksbZ vkSfpR; fn[kkbZ ugha ns jgk gS blfy, izdj.k esa izLrqr vkifÙk fujLr dh tkrh gSA** 4. The submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the amplitude of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure is too wide to include such questions to be decided by the Executing Court while passing an order about execution of the decree. He further submits that in fact, the Executing Court has not entered into the controversy raised by the applicants and has passed a superficial order in a hasty manner, which cannot be said to be a judicial order in accordance with law. He prays for quashing of the said order and also for issuance of appropriate directions. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supports the order and submits that though the order does not contain reasons on which the Executing Court has overruled the objections, but, the Executing Court has taken a right view on the basis of material available on record. The objections raised by the applicants were liable to be dismissed, which have rightly been dismissed by the Executing Court. 6. The objections raised by the applicants were liable to be dismissed, which have rightly been dismissed by the Executing Court. 6. Section 47 relates to the questions to be determined by the Court, executing a decree. It has been provided that all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed or their representatives and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court, executing the decree and not by the seperate suit. There are certain explanations under this Section. The overall effect of this Section is that as soon as a question relating to the execution discharge or satisfaction of the decree is raised by the parties concerned, the Executing Court shall have to determine those questions and no separate suit etc. is required to be filed in this regard. 7. In view of the provisions contained in Section 47, it is apparent that when the objection like limitation, maintainability, non-joinder and want of appropriate particulars were raised by the applicants against the execution of the decree, it was incumbent upon the Court to decide those points by passing an appropriate order on them, which has not been done in this case. 8. Another aspect of the matter would be that the decision reached by the Executing Court does not appear to be based on reasonings. A judicial order is always required to be passed on reasonings and if the order is unreasoned, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice (please see Alexander Machinery Dudley Ltd. Vs. Crabtree). 9. In view of what has been stated above, I am of the opinion that this order passed by the Executing Court must be quashed. The same is accordingly quashed. The Executing Court is directed to take up the matter for hearing and to decide these points raised by the applicants before passing an order regarding execution of decree. If the Warrant of possession have already been issued, they shall be kept in abeyance till decision of the points raised and the decision rendered by the executing court shall be followed in all respects. 10. If the Warrant of possession have already been issued, they shall be kept in abeyance till decision of the points raised and the decision rendered by the executing court shall be followed in all respects. 10. At this stage, Shri Saifuddin Rajas submits that the matter is an old matter and some time-limit be also fixed for the Executing Court. The prayer appears to be reasonable. It is observed that the Executing Court shall take necessary steps to dispose of the matter at an early date, provided the parties to the petition extend due cooperation. 11. Parties are directed to appear before the Executing Court on 17th July 2006. Revision Allowed.