Court slaps Rs 2 fine on family for ‘gross abuse of law’ in 40-year-old case in UP

The petitioners have been directed to deposit the Rs 2 fine imposed by the court by July 7, failing which the district magistrate, Saharanpur, has been authorised to recover it as arrears of land revenue.

The court noted that the legal challenge came more than 10,000 days after the relevant proceedings and decades after the decree had attained finality and impose Rs 2 cost. (File image)

Challenge after more than 10,000 days

The high court repeatedly emphasised the extraordinary delay with which the petition had been filed.

The court, imposing the Rs 2 fine, noted that the challenge came more than 10,000 days after the relevant proceedings and decades after the decree had attained finality.

“The petition, as initially filed, was not only barred by laches of 10274 days, as reported, but was also not maintainable and filing of the petition was gross abuse and misuse of the process of law,” the court said.

It held that the petitioners were effectively seeking to reopen a dispute that had already passed through every stage of the civil process, imposing the Rs 2 fine.

The court also relied upon settled Supreme Court law holding that an executing court cannot go behind a decree and that even an allegedly erroneous decree remains binding unless set aside in appeal or other appropriate proceedings.

Since no appeal had ever been filed against the decree of January 1, 1985, the high court ruled that its validity could not be questioned indirectly through a petition under Article 227 and imposing the Rs 2 fine.

Dispute that began with Rs 8,000 loan

The litigation traces its roots to 1984, filed for the recovery of Rs 8,000 allegedly advanced to Jai Nand, the father of the present petitioners.

On January 1, 1985, a trial court decreed the suit ex parte and directed the defendant to repay the amount along with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum.

The decree-holder subsequently initiated execution proceedings.

However, what appeared to be a routine money recovery case gradually transformed into a prolonged legal battle involving attachment, auction, and competing claims over agricultural land situated in Village Nandheda Khurd in Deoband tehsil of Saharanpur.

Jai Nand died in October 1988, after which the decree-holder moved against his legal heirs to recover the decretal amount.

More than three decades later, almost after 37 years, the heirs approached the high court claiming that they had no knowledge of the decree or the execution proceedings and sought to undo everything that had happened since 1985.

Petitioners alleged auction was illegal

The petitioners, on whom the court imposed Rs 2 fine, contended that they became aware of the proceedings only years later when authorities attempted to measure the disputed property.

They argued that the execution proceedings had been conducted behind their backs and that valuable agricultural land had been auctioned to satisfy a relatively small money decree.

Their counsel submitted that the ex parte decree was legally flawed, that proper procedures under the Civil Procedure Code had not been followed, and that the auction proceedings suffered from serious irregularities.

The petitioners, who were impose imposing the Rs 2 fine, further argued that because they were not parties to the original suit, the decree could not automatically bind them.

Legal heirs cannot escape liability

Rejecting the argument, Justice Shailendra noted that the Civil Procedure Code expressly permits execution of decrees against the legal representatives of a deceased judgment debtor.

The court referred to Sections 2(11), 50, and 146 of the Code and held that the petitioners, having inherited the estate of the deceased, could not claim immunity from execution proceedings.

“As far as the legal position regarding status of legal representatives of the judgment debtor is concerned, a legal representative means a person who, in law, represents the estate of a deceased person,” the court noted.

Accordingly, the court imposing imposing the Rs 2 fine held that the decree remained enforceable against the legal heirs.

Records show petitioners participated in proceedings

One of the central claims of the petitioners was that they did not know of the execution proceedings.

However, the high court found that the record told a different story and imposed Rs 2 fine.

Justice Shailendra noted that notices had been issued to the legal heirs after a fresh execution application was filed in August 1989 and imposed Rs 2 fine.

More importantly, one of the petitioners had actively participated in the proceedings and had filed objections under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code.

The court found that those objections were considered and decided by the executing court on July 20, 1993 and imposed Rs 2 fine.

“The submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the order sheet does not indicate disposal of objections under Section 47 CPC cannot be accepted,” the judgment said.

Since the order deciding those objections was never challenged, the court held that it had attained finality long ago and imposed Rs 2 fine.

Auction process scrutinised

A substantial portion of the judgment deals with the legality of the auction through which the decree-holder ultimately acquired the disputed property.

The court found that an earlier auction sale had indeed been set aside because the decree-holder had purchased the property without obtaining prior permission of the executing court as required under Order XXI Rule 72 of the Civil Procedure Code.

However, the executing court subsequently corrected the defect.

A fresh auction was conducted in 1999 after following the prescribed procedure.

When no competing bidders emerged, the decree-holder became the highest bidder and purchased the property with the court’s permission.

The sale was confirmed, a sale certificate was issued, and the property was later mutated in favour of the auction purchaser.

The execution proceedings were formally closed in 2002 after the court recorded full satisfaction of the decree.

“The Court is satisfied that due procedure of law was followed,” Justice Shailendra observed.

Court takes serious view of contradictory claims

• Justice Shailendra noted that the petition originally claimed that the petitioners first acquired knowledge of the proceedings on November 20, 2012 and imposed Rs 2 fine.
• However, in their written submissions, they stated that they became aware of the dispute only in 2021.
• The court described this as a significant inconsistency.
• The judgment also records that only a selective portion of the execution record was initially filed before the high court when the petition was instituted in 2022.
• According to the court, later documents revealed that the petitioners had been aware of and involved in the proceedings much earlier than claimed.
• “The Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioners selectively chose documents for filing and raised absolute false and misleading pleas to obtain an interim order from this Court,” the judgment said.
• The court further observed that the petitioners had succeeded in obtaining an interim order protecting them from eviction despite the fact that possession had already been delivered to the auction purchaser and corresponding revenue entries had been made years earlier.

Directions on possession

The high court, impose Rs 2 fine also directed the local administration to ensure that there is no hindrance in securing and protecting the possession of the successful auction purchasers.

A compliance report has been sought by August 12.