Inderjeet vs Kulbhushan Jain
- SCC(2009) 15 SCC 79
- AIRAIR 2009 SC 3167
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An interim mandatory order directing a decree-holder to deliver possession of property to the judgment-debtor cannot be made at the interlocutory stage of execution proceedings; such delivery can only follow a final order made after the substantive petition is finally disposed of. A decree-holder in lawful possession of property obtained through court-ordered execution is entitled to retain that possession pending final determination of any revision petition challenging the decree or its execution, and may be restrained from alienating or inducting third parties into the property during the pendency of such proceedings, but cannot be compelled to relinquish possession to the judgment-debtor until the revision petition is finally decided.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. This appeal is directed against an interim mandatory order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CM Nos.6086-87 of 2009 and C.R.No.956 of 2009 by which the appellant was directed to put the judgment-debtor/respondent in possession of the property and the matter was directed to be placed for compliance on a particular date mentioned in the order.
2 3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed this special leave petition, which, on grant of leave, was heard by us in the presence of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order and other materials on record, we are unable to sustain a part of the order passed by the High Court, which is impugned before us. It appears from the record that civil revision case being C.R.No.956/2009 has been admitted by the High Court on 24th of February, 2009.
The appellant had filed caveat in the High Court and at the time of admission, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant being decree holder had already taken possession of the property through Court. Learned Judge by the impugned interim order directed that the appellant shall put the judgment-debtor/respondent in possession of the property. Since the decree holder /appellant has taken 3 possession of the property in question in execution of the decree at this stage, question of redelivering possession to the Judgment debtor cannot arise at all.
This can be done only when a final order is passed by the High Court in the pending revision petition.
5. That being the position, the impugned order to the extent that the decree holder shall put the judgment- debtor in possession of the property in question is set aside. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we direct that the appellant shall not part with or alienate or induct in the property in question till the disposal of the civil revision case now pending before the High Court for final disposal. We also request the High Court to finally dispose of the civil revision case at an early date preferably within six months from the date of supply of a copy of this order to it without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal is 4 allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.
........................J.
[Tarun Chatterjee]
New Delhi .........................J.
July 07, 2009. [H.L.Dattu]
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free