MAHESHWARI, J. - (1.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner- judgment-debtor, who has moved an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure raising objections against execution of the decree passed on compromise by the Court of Additional District Judge, Sri Karanpur in Civil Suit No. 5/1998, seeks to question the orders dated 20.10.2011 (Annex. 6 and Annex. 7) whereby the learned Executing Court has rejected the applications moved on her behalf, purportedly under Order VI Rule 17 and Order VII Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
(2.) THE relevant background aspects of the matter are that Shri Angrej Singh (since deceased and represented by the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 herein) had filed the civil suit aforesaid, claiming his rights in the land in question situated at Chak 37 RB, Tehsil Padampur, while joining the petitioner Balveer Kaur as defendant No. 1. In this suit, one Shri Pritam Singh was appearing as the. power of attorney holder of the petitioner-defendant No. 1; and a compromise was allegedly placed by the said power of attorney holder of the petitioner before the Trial Court on 03.11.2007. On the basis of such; compromise, the decree came to be passed in favour of the plaintiff. This decree having been put to execution, the petitioner filed her objections under Section 47 CPC. Though a copy of such objection petition has not been placed on record, however, as per the averments taken in this petition, the petitioner has alleged that the decree was a nullity for having been obtained by fraud; and that the compromise purportedly operates in relinquishment of her rights and such relinquishment could have been made only through a registered instrument. THEre appears another ground taken in the objection petition that the decree was a nullity for having been passed without challenging the validity of the order of the Minister concerned. It appears from the material placed on record that in the said application under Section 47 CPC, the Executing Court has taken evidence and has heard the parties and the matter has reached the stage of final disposal. At such a belated stage, the aforesaid two applications came to be moved on behalf of the petitioner. It was suggested by way of the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC that the petitioner had already revoked the power of attorney earlier given in favour of Shri Pritam Singh but then, the said attorney colluded with the plaintiff and presented the compromise on whose basis the decree in question came to be passed. THE petitioner submitted that ultimately, upon the call of his inner conscience and in order to relieve himself of the weight of his misdeeds, the said erstwhile power of attorney-holder Shri Pritam Singh addressed one letter dated 26.04.2008 to one Shri Raj Singh admitting his clandestine deal; and that similar kind of communication was also addressed by him to another of his close friend Shri Jogendra Singh on 30.04.2008. THE petitioner alleged that in those letters, Shri Pritam Singh urged the addressees to make a request to one Shri Iqbal Singh not to help the petitioner; and that the said Shri Iqbal Singh handed over such letters and envelopments to her present power of attorney holder Shri Gurvender Singh Siddhu. With these submissions, the petitioner sought permission to take the pleading in relation to the said letters. By way of another application under Order VII Rule 14 (3) CPC, the petitioner sought permission to file the said letters dated 26.04.2008 and 30.04.2008 alongwith their envelopments. THE applications were put to contention by the decree-holder with the submissions that there was nothing on record showing revocation of the power of attorney of Pritam Singh and that the letters in question had been prepared while taking advantage of the fact that Balveer Kaur (the petitioner) and Pritam Singh were residing in America. It was also submitted that hearing had already been completed in the matter and at the given stage, such applications could not be allowed. The learned Executing Court has considered and rejected the aforesaid two application by its separate orders of the even date, i.e., 22.10.2011.
(3.) THE learned Executing Court, after referring to the stand of the parties and the cited decisions, has rejected the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC with the following observations:- JUDGEMENT_2158_RAJLW3_2012Image1.jpg JUDGEMENT_2158_RAJLW3_2012Image2.jpg THE other application under Order VII Rule 14 (3) has also been rejected with the following observations:- JUDGEMENT_2158_RAJLW3_2012Image3.jpg ;