Person Claiming Through Judgment Debtor Cannot Resist Execution: P&H High Court Dismisses Objections

Case Name: Baba Gopal Dass Chela Surti Dass (through Mahant Ram Niwas Das Ji) v. Ghat Talab Kaulan Wala

Date of Judgment: 16 March 2026

Citation: ESA-19-2026

Bench: Justice Deepak Gupta

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a person claiming through a judgment debtor cannot resist execution of a decree that has attained finality. The executing court cannot go behind the decree, and objections by such derivative claimants are not maintainable.

Summary: The dispute arose out of execution proceedings initiated pursuant to a decree of mandatory injunction directing handing over of management and possession of temple property. The decree had been restored by the Supreme Court and had attained finality.

During execution, the appellant filed objections contending that he was not declared as the legal representative or successor of the original defendant and therefore the decree could not be enforced against him. It was also argued that the execution sought possession beyond the scope of the decree.

The executing court dismissed the objections, and the appellate court affirmed the same, holding that the decree was executable and binding.

Before the High Court, the appellant reiterated that he was an independent third party and not bound by the decree. The Court, however, noted that the appellant himself claimed status through the original defendant as his Chela/Mahant, and thus his possession was derivative in nature.

The Court emphasized that an executing court cannot go behind a decree which has attained finality, particularly when affirmed by the Supreme Court. It further held that a person claiming through the judgment debtor cannot assume the status of an independent third party to obstruct execution.

Interpreting Sections 47 and 146 CPC, the Court observed that the expression “representative” includes persons deriving title or possession through the judgment debtor. Such persons are bound by the decree and cannot claim a better right than the original judgment debtor.

The Court also rejected the contention regarding identity of property, noting that the decree clearly specified the property and no prejudice was caused.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the Execution Second Appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose and that the objections raised by the appellant were devoid of merit.