The Supreme Court has held that execution proceedings cannot be delayed by raising objections at a late stage, especially when the objector had prior knowledge of the decree and sufficient opportunity to challenge it earlier.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran set aside an order of the Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench, which had interfered with concurrent findings of the Executing Court and the First Appellate Court.
The dispute relates to a money decree passed in 2017 in favour of the decree-holder for recovery of dues arising from a loan transaction. The loan was taken for a family-run business involving the judgment-debtor and his family members. After default in repayment, execution proceedings were initiated under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to enforce the decree against the concerned property.
The execution proceedings remained pending for nearly nine years, during which multiple objections were filed by the judgment-debtor. All such objections were dismissed by the Executing Court, allowing the enforcement process to continue.
At an advanced stage of execution, when dispossession was imminent, the mother of the judgment-debtor filed an objection under Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC. She claimed an independent one-third ownership share in the property and sought to resist execution.
The decree-holder opposed the objection, arguing that the objector had been residing in the property and was fully aware of both the original suit and the execution proceedings. It was contended that the objection was belated, lacked bona fides, and was intended to obstruct execution.
Both the Executing Court and the First Appellate Court rejected the objection. However, the High Court allowed it, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that a third party cannot raise objections at a late stage when they had prior knowledge and opportunity to assert their rights earlier. The Court observed that such belated claims, particularly without prima facie evidence, amount to an abuse of process and are intended to delay enforcement of the decree.
The Court noted that the objector had admitted to residing in the property throughout and could not claim ignorance of the proceedings. It also observed that the property was linked to a family business for which the loan was taken, weakening the claim of independent ownership.
Holding that the High Court erred in interfering with well-reasoned concurrent findings, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and restored the orders of the Executing Court and the First Appellate Court.
The Court further directed that the decree be executed without delay and that the property, if not already handed over, be vacated and delivered to the decree-holder in an expeditious manner.