The Punjab and Haryana High Court reaffirmed that judgment-debtors cannot invoke pleas of fraud or disputed heirship in execution proceedings when those issues have been finally adjudicated in the original suit and appeals. Applications under repealed Section 48 CPC are not maintainable. The Court aligns with Supreme Court law, confirming settled principles of finality and res judicata—binding for courts in Punjab and Haryana and of persuasive value elsewhere. Significant for property, civil execution, and litigation involving repetitive objections by judgment-debtors.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR/5192/2025 of FAKHRU AND ANOTHER Vs ALI MOHD AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC011220332025 |
| Date of Registration | 02-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on Punjab & Haryana subordinate courts; persuasive for other jurisdictions |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms: Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra (1990) 1 SCC 193 |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure / Execution Proceedings |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the executing court cannot go behind the decree; issues of fraud and heirship, if raised and decided in the original suit and appeals, are finally settled and cannot be reopened in execution. Section 48 CPC has long been repealed and cannot be invoked for limiting execution. Judgment-debtors have no locus standi to file applications under Order 21 Rules 97, 101, or 1011. Repetitive objections amount to res judicata and abuse of process. The Court has supervisory, not appellate, jurisdiction under Article 227. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra (1990) 1 SCC 193 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court precedent prohibiting executing courts from re-adjudicating matters settled in the suit unless decree is a nullity for lack of jurisdiction. Principle of res judicata. Finality of litigation and binding effect of decrees. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Respondents (decree-holders) obtained permanent injunction against petitioners (judgment-debtors) restricting dispossession and interference with property; judgment-debtors challenged decree in appeals and objected in first execution, all dismissed. Petitioners then filed fresh objections in second execution citing fraud and heirship, as well as applications under Section 48 CPC and Order 21 Rules 97, 101, 1011, all dismissed as not maintainable. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | High Courts and the Supreme Court; other state courts (persuasive, not binding) |
| Follows | Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra (1990) 1 SCC 193 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that applications under Section 48 CPC are not maintainable as the provision has long been repealed.
- Restates that executing courts cannot revisit issues of fraud or heirship already adjudicated in the original suit or in prior execution objections.
- Judgment-debtors have no locus standi to invoke Order 21 Rules 97, 101, or 1011 CPC to resist execution when the decree has attained finality.
- Repetitive objections, on grounds already decided, are barred by res judicata and amount to abuse of process.
- Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not appellate; High Court will not re-appreciate evidence, only correct jurisdictional errors.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court meticulously examined the rival contentions and the record, finding no merit in the civil revision.
- Application under Section 48 CPC was dismissed as not maintainable: the provision, which once limited execution to 12 years, was repealed by Section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and then by the Repealing and Amending Act, 1974—thus, no application lies thereunder.
- Issues regarding fraud and heirship had been raised and adjudicated in the original suit, where the rights of parties as legal heirs of Sakinna were framed, evaluated on evidence, and decided; findings affirmed in appeal and second appeal, and first execution objections also rejected.
- Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra consistently held: executing courts cannot go behind the decree or reopen issues already adjudicated, except where the decree is a nullity due to lack of jurisdiction (which was not the case here).
- Judgment-debtors cannot file applications under Order 21 Rule 97, 101, or 1011, as these remedies are for decree-holders facing obstruction, not judgment-debtors resisting execution by raising recycled objections.
- Res judicata principle bars repetition of previously decided objections; consistent finality is necessary for effective enforcement of decrees.
- High Court’s scope under Article 227 is limited to jurisdictional errors; no ground made out for interference.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Decree was obtained by fraud, based on mutation sanctioned illegally in collusion with revenue officials.
- Petitioners are the only legal heirs of Sakinna; mutation in respondents’ favour is fraudulent.
- Verification report from revenue authorities now establishes their (petitioners’) claim as heirs; this was not available earlier.
- Executing court erred by not considering new material and wrongly dismissed applications as not maintainable.
Respondent/Decree-Holders
- Issues of succession and entitlement to property were finally adjudicated in the original suit and affirmed on appeal.
- Objections were already dismissed in first execution; fresh applications on same grounds are barred by res judicata and amount to abuse of process.
- Section 48 CPC is repealed; no application lies under this provision.
- Remedy under Order 21 Rule 97 is only available to decree-holders, not judgment-debtors; petitioners have no locus standi.
Factual Background
The respondents (decree-holders) filed a civil suit for permanent injunction to restrain the present petitioners (judgment-debtors) from dispossessing them from the suit property, interfering with their peaceful possession, or demolishing their residential house thereon. The petitioners contended that the plaintiffs (respondents) were not residents of the village nor legal heirs of Sakinna, and that revenue records in their favour were illegal. The civil court decreed the suit in 2013; appeals by the petitioners were dismissed, with finality attained in 2018. First execution resulted in warrant of possession in 2022; objections by petitioners were dismissed. Subsequently, in the second execution, petitioners filed fresh objections alleging fraud and wrongful mutation, and applications under repealed Section 48 CPC and Order 21 Rules 97, 101, and 1011 CPC, all of which were dismissed by the executing court.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 48 CPC: Formerly imposed a 12-year limitation on execution; now repealed (by Section 28 of Limitation Act, 1963 and Repealing and Amending Act, 1974). No application lies under this section.
- Order 21, Rules 97, 101, 1011 CPC: Remedy under these provisions is for decree-holder or purchaser facing obstruction or resistance, not for judgment-debtor; judgment-debtors have no locus.
- Section 11 CPC (Res judicata): Repetitive objections already decided cannot be entertained again in execution.
- Article 227 Constitution of India: Provides for limited supervisory jurisdiction—cannot be used as an appellate forum or to re-appreciate evidence.
- Reference to Supreme Court’s Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra (1990) 1 SCC 193: Executing court cannot go behind the decree or revisit issues fully adjudicated unless decree is a nullity for want of jurisdiction.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Supreme Court precedent (Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra, 1990) reaffirmed; no new law created, but strong clarification issued.