LI Network
Published on: January 2, 2024 at 21:22 IST
The Karnataka High Court emphasized the necessity for an Execution Court to specify the rationale behind scheduling an Execution Petition for an inquiry.
In a recent decision, the Court granted a Writ Petition contesting the decision of the Execution Court to schedule an inquiry regarding the execution petition.
Highlighting the lack of a valid reason, the Court observed that the Execution Court had set an inquiry for the execution petition without proper justification. Referring to Rule 35 of Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), the Court mentioned that an inquiry for a possession decree isn’t mandatory unless contested by the judgment debtor.
Justice S.G. Pandit’s bench remarked, “The Execution Court, without specifying any rationale or purpose for the inquiry, ordered the posting of the execution petition for an inquiry. The order should justify the grounds for such action. Generally, an inquiry might not be required for executing a possession decree as per Rule 35 of Order 21 of CPC, unless the judgment debtor raises specific objections.”
The petitioners moved the High Court against an order from the Execution Court that scheduled an inquiry for the execution petition.
They argued that the possession suit’s decree obliged the Respondent to surrender vacant possession of the premises and pay a mesne profit. Contesting the Execution Court’s decision, they contended that an inquiry was unnecessary for a possession decree, as supported by Rule 35 of Order 21 of the CPC.
The Court noted the primary objection from the Respondent, who claimed the executed decree was related to a 600 sq. ft. property while occupying more than 2000 sq. ft.
The Court emphasized that proceeding with execution without proper property identification would cause undue hardship to the judgment debtor.
The Bench highlighted the necessity for the Execution Court to consider objections raised by the judgment debtor before deciding on the need for an inquiry. “The Execution Court must assess the objections raised by the judgment debtor and issue an appropriate order. In this case, the Execution Court should assess the objections raised by the judgment debtor to determine the necessity of an inquiry,” noted the Bench.
In light of the circumstances, the Bench pointed out that the Execution Court had scheduled the execution petition for an inquiry without offering any reasoning.
The order should provide a valid rationale for such an inquiry, as typically, no such inquiry is warranted for executing a possession decree under Rule 35 of Order 21 of the CPC unless specifically objected to by the judgment debtor.
Consequently, the Court accepted the Petition and annulled the contested judgment.