Summary
An executing court arranged execution and registration of a sale deed under a specific-performance decree without serving the draft on the judgment debtor or hearing objections to it. The Court held that rejection of general execution objections did not dispense with the mandatory draft-document procedure. It directed service, objections and a hearing, leaving cancellation and replacement of the executed deed conditional on non-conformity with the decree. Further proceedings under that deed were held in abeyance.
Issues
- Whether prior rejection of execution objections dispensed with service and scrutiny of the draft sale deed.
- Whether the executed deed conformed to the final decree.
- What corrective procedure and interim protection were required.
Provisions considered
- Order XXI Rule 34, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The decree-holder must submit the draft to the court, which must serve it with notice, consider timely written objections and approve or alter it before execution and registration. These safeguards could not be bypassed. (¶ 9-14)
Held
- The decree concerned 24 kanals and 2 marlas in the specified holding. The judgment debtor could not reopen the settled extent by alleging that the decree required conveyance of a larger area or additional consideration on that basis. (¶ 8)
- The court, rather than the decree-holder directly, had the duty to serve the submitted draft with an opportunity for objections. It then had to approve or alter the draft before execution in conformity with the decree. (¶ 9-11)
- Objections to the enforceability of the decree were distinct from objections that the proposed deed departed from it. Dismissal of the former did not discharge the duty to hear the latter; execution and registration without that process violated Rule 34. (¶ 12-14)
- The draft was to be supplied within two weeks of production of the judgment, objections could be filed within three weeks thereafter, and a hearing and decision were required. The entire corrective process was to finish within four months of production of the judgment. (¶ 15-16)
- If the executed deed was found inconsistent with the decree, it had to be set aside and a fresh deed executed through proper proceedings. Cancellation was therefore conditional on that determination, while further proceedings based on the existing deed were held in abeyance. (¶ 16)
Result
Appeal allowed and the impugned order set aside. Service, objections and adjudication concerning the draft deed were directed within the specified timetable. Further proceedings under the executed deed were held in abeyance; cancellation and replacement were required if it departed from the decree. Parties were to bear their own costs.