Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:37747 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMP No. 25665 of 2025 in Civil Revision No. 168 of 2025 Reserved on: 27.10.2025 Date of decision: 11.11.2025 ________________________________________________ Rachita Aggarwal ...Applicant/petitioner Versus Rajeev Aggarwal & Ors. ...Non-applicant/Respondent No. 1 ________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the applicant/petitioner: Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate. For Non-applicant/respondent: No. 1 Mr. Arjun Lall, Advocate. Sushil Kukreja, Judge The present application has been filed by the applicant/petitioner under Section 151 of CPC seeking stay of impugned order dated 17.10.2025, passed by learned Rent Controller, Court No. 2, Shimla, which is annexed alongwith the present petition as Annexure P-6, vide which order dated 01.07.2025, passed by learned Rent Controller, regarding the issuance of warrant of possession with respect to the demised premised, was directed to be complied with. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:37747 ) 2 2. Brief facts of the case for the purpose of disposal of the instant application are that on 20.12.2010, respondent No. 1/Decree Holder, Rajeev Aggarwal had filed eviction petition against Smt. Radha Rani (respondent No. 2 herein) on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent as well as subletting the premises without the permission of the landlord. The said eviction petition was allowed vide order dated 17.03.2011. The said order was never challenged and the same had attained finality. Respondent No. 2, Radha Rani was ordered to be evicted from the demised premises, i.e. Set No. 5, Priya Darshani Apartment, Sanjauli Road, Shimla 3. On 23.04.2011, the landlord Rajeev Aggarwal (respondent No. 1 herein) had filed execution petition before the learned Rent Controller, Shimla, seeking possession of demised premises by issuance of warrant of possession. In the said execution petition, third party objections under order 21 Rules 97 & 99 were filed by Rachita Aggarwal (applicant/petitioner herein), Sushma Aggarwal, Ram Krishan Aggarwal and Radha Rani. It may be pertinent to mention that Sushma Aggarwal and Rachita Aggarwal are the daughters of Radha Rani. Ram Krishan Aggarwal is the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:37747 ) 3 husband of Sushma Aggarwal. The said objections were dismissed vide order dated 01.07.2025, which order was challenged before the Appellate Authority and vide order 23.09.2025, order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the learned Executing Court was affirmed and upheld. Thereafter, vide order dated 17.10.2025, the Executing court had ordered the issuance of warrant of possession with respect to the demised premised. 4. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Appellate Authority (CBI Court) dated 23.09.2025. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No. 1/decree holder Rajeev Aggarwal had claimed the right in the demised premises, specifically on account of Will in his favour by his grand-mother/first wife of Mam Raj and the learned Civil Court had given the findings in its order dated 12.01.2024 to the effect that the Will was never proved in accordance with law, since it never saw the light of the day, therefore, the execution petition had become infructuous on account of this very fact that the Will had never been produced/proved in accordance with law. He further contended that the issues were required to be framed Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:37747 ) 4 by the executing court on account of material objections raised by the petitioner alongwith other objectors and without framing the same, the objections could not have been dismissed. He also contended that the learned Appellate Authority had failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant Ms. Rachita Aggarwal alongwith respondent Smt. Radha Rani, being mother, respondent Smt. Sushma Aggarwal, being sister, Shri Ramesh Chand father of respondent/decree holder Rajeev Aggarwal, and two other sisters Smt. Sarita and Pawan, are the co-owners of the entire suit property, where the demised premises are located, therefore the orders passed by both the Courts below deserve to be quashed and set aside. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 contended that the present execution petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and has solely been filed just to delay the proceedings. He further contended that all the issues sought to be raised by way of the present petition were available to the petitioner at the time of the passing of the eviction order dated 17.03.2011, but for the reasons best known to her, she did not raise all the issues at the relevant time. He also Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:37747 ) 5 contended that the present objections, in the execution of the eviction order dated 17.03.2011, are completely misplaced and devoid of merits. Lastly, he submitted that as the instant petition has been filed only with an intent to delay the execution proceedings, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any interim relief. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the entire records. 8. The perusal of the record reveals that the learned Executing Court while dismissing the objections vide order dated 01.07.2025, had observed that during the pendency of the present execution petition till date almost 35 applications have been filed by the objector(s). Relevant portion of the aforesaid order reads as under:- “27. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the present execution petition, till date, almost 35 applications have been moved by the objectors, inter alia, on one or more similar grounds touching upon the merits of the objections filed and seeking review of court orders repeatedly. The order dated 09.09.2024 passed by this Court, while deciding an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, recorded that the said application had been filed with malafide intention to delay the proceedings. Further, the order dated 27.03.2025, while deciding yet another application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, observed that the application amounted to an abuse of the process of law and was accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 3,000/-. It appears that the Judgment Debtor and third-party objectors have been persistently filing applications under various pretexts with the primary objective of obstructing the execution proceedings, rather than raising bonafide legal issues. A perusal of orders dated 23.10.2024 and 23.12.2024 further indicates that delays were occasioned by the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:37747 ) 6 respondents. particularly Smt. Sushma Aggarwal, who, on those occasions, submitted at the bar that a stay order had been granted by the Hon'ble High Court. However, despite being granted opportunities, no such order was ever produced before this Court. 28. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that these application also appears to have been filed not in good faith, but as a deliberate tactic to cause further delay in the matter. Such practices are highly deprecated, and this executing court deems it appropriate to adopt a firm approach to curb such tendencies, which ultimately defeat the ends of justice.” 9. Thereafter, the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 23.09.2025 had reiterated findings given by the learned Rent Controller. Relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “43. It is evident from the record that after suffering the eviction order dated 17.03.2011, the J.D. is now acting in collusion that the objectors, two of whom are her daughters and one is son in law, whose status was alleged to be that of sub tenant in the eviction proceeding. No benefit can be afforded to the J.D./objectors from the ratio of case law relied upon by them, though I am in respectful submissions to the same. The Ld. Court below has correctly appreciated the pleadings on record and reached a logical conclusion based thereupon. There is nothing to suggest that the impugned order suffers from any illegality or has not passed in accordance with law. The Ld. Executing Court considered the objections of the parties and decided the same after giving them due opportunities of hearing. There is nothing on record to suggest that the objections have been dismissed by the Ld. Executing Court in a mechanical manner. The Ld. Executing Court had also decided the pending applications by applying correct proposition of law to the facts on record. The pains with which the Ld. Executing Court managed to decide the objections is duly reflected in para No. of the impugned order. As such, it cannot be said that the impugned order is not legally sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in negative against the appellants.” 10. It may be pertinent to mention here that respondent No. 2/Judgment Debtor, Smt. Radha Rani had also preferred Civil Revision No. 142 of 2025 challenging the same order dated 01.07.2025 and in terms of order dated Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:37747 ) 7 23.09.2025, a co-ordinate bench of this Court clarified that mere filing of said petition would not come in the way of dealing with other related matters either by the learned Rent Controller as Executing Court or by the Appellate Authority. Respondent No.4-Smt. Sushma Aggarwal, the other objector, had also preferred RSA No. 234 of 2025 before this Court, which was permitted to be withdrawn with observation that mere pendency of the proceedings before that Court would not preclude the trial Court with the execution proceedings, which admittedly were pending since 2011. 11. It may also be pertinent to mention here that respondent No. 4 Smt. Sushma Aggarwal had also filed CMPMO No. 613 of 2024, challenging the orders passed by the Executing Court and while dismissing the said CMPMO No. 613 of 2024, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had observed as under: “4(iv). ………….The only logical reason that can be inferred in the given facts & circumstances of the case is that petitioner’s intention is to delay the execution proceedings filed in the year 2011 on one pretext or the other. In furtherance of this intention, she keeps filing one application after another on same, similar or overlapping causes & even against orders which cause her no prejudice. Petitioner herself does not appear to be interested in adjudication of her applications/objections or else when the matter came up for hearing before the learned Executing Court she would not have moved another & yet another application. The only object of the petitioner in instituting this petition that can be deduced is yet another attempt of Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:37747 ) 8 hers for protracting the proceedings in the execution petition. Litigation cannot be filed merely for the sake of litigating without any just cause or grievance. In the given facts and circumstances, it has to be held that the instant petition is nothing but an outright abuse of the process of the Court. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs. UOI & Ors. [(2011) 8 SCC 161], the Hon’ble Apex Court emphasized for ensuring that the legal process is not abused by the litigants in any manner. It is the bounden duty of the Courts to ensure that dishonesty and attempts to abuse the legal process are effectively curbed. That to curb such attempts, realistic costs should be imposed which the defendant/respondent incurred in order to defend himself in the legal proceedings and even the imposition of punitive cost would be fully justified by the Courts where the legal process has been abused. In Charu Kishor Mehta Versus Prakash Patel & Ors.(SLP(C) No. 11030/2022 decided on 22.06.2022), the Hon’ble Apex Court while upholding the order passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court dismissing the appeal with costs of Rs.5 lakhs took into consideration the attempts made by the Petitioner in obstructing the execution of recovery certificate under the SARFAESI Act by filing numerous proceedings before the authorities as well as before the Hob’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, the Apex Court even took note of numerous SLPs filed before it which were either dismissed or withdrawn and held that the Petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the same plea again by filing the another petition and that he had not approached the Court with clean hands, thereby abusing the process of law as well as process of Court. Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated its earlier observations in Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(2020) 2 SCC 114] and Subrata Roy Sahara Vs. Union of India [(2014) 8 SCC 470] Relevant paras from the judgment reads as under:- “19. The Supreme Court in Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(2010) 2 SCC114] has this to say for methods adopted at the hands of litigants under similar circumstances. Paragraph nos. 1 and 2 as produced below:- “1. For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e., `Satya' (truth) and `Ahimsa' (nonviolence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of justice delivery system which was in vogue in pre-independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has over-shadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:37747 ) 9 court proceedings. 2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.” 20. We may record here that we were initially persuaded in this case, to initiate contempt proceedings against the Petitioner, considering that there has been a deliberate attempt on her part in the non-disclosure of absolutely relevant facts before this Court. We are not doing so purely due to the age of the Petitioner as she is a lady of 78 years of age. The present petition is no doubt an abuse of the process of law and has caused harm to the other parties to the litigation, some of whom may have been needlessly drawn into the litigation. We may refer here an observation given in the case of Subrata Roy Sahara Vs Union of India [(2014) 8 SCC 470]: “191. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted, with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved, to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession, towards senseless and ill-considered claims. One needs to keep in mind, that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side, of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending, without any fault on his part.” 12. Further, the respondent No. 4 Smt. Sushma Aggarwal had filed one Civil Suit No. 47-1 of 2011 seeking declaration of her alleged rights as a co-owner in the suit property, wherein, present petitioner, Rachita Aggarwal was arrayed as defendant No. 7. The claim now sought to be raised by the petitioner qua her having the status of a co- owner in the suit property was never raised by her as she Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:37747 ) 10 didn’t chose to contest the suit and remained proceeded as ex parte. In the said suit, the address of the petitioner was given as “R/o Set No. 9, Block H, Housing Board Colony Strawberry Hills, Chhotta Shimla” which clearly indicates that she is not even in possession/residing in the demised premises. 13. So far as the issue qua the validity of the eviction order dated 17.03.2011 is concerned, the Civil Court had given categorical findings to the effect that the eviction order is not a result of any fraud, which is now being sought to be argued by the petitioner. 14. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the defendants have not proved the Will is totally misplaced, as once the suit has been dismissed, then no reliance can be placed on the findings with respect to the Will allegedly executed by Smt. Darshani Devi in favour of Smt. Veena Aggarwal, Shri Sanjeev Aggarwal and Shri Rajeev Aggarwal. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the learned Executing Court was obliged to frame issues and to grant an opportunity to the objectors to lead evidence. However, this contention of the learned Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:37747 ) 11 counsel appearing for the petitioner is devoid of any force. It is settled principle of law that it is not incumbent upon the executing Court that it must put to trial every objections which may be filed in any execution proceedings, even if prima facie they appear to be frivolous, vexatious and are only intended to delay the execution and frustrate the procedure of law or where it amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. The objections are not supposed to be decided like a suit and can be adjudicated upon summarily. As per Order 21 Rule 101 of the CPC, any dispute which arises in respect of the right, title or interest in a property between the parties in proceedings before the Executing Court, i.e. the Decree Holder and the Objector, the same need not be decided by a separate suit. The legislative mandate is that the objections ought to be adjudicated in the execution petition itself, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting rulings. 16. In the present case, the perusal of the impugned orders passed by both the courts below show that all the pleas which have been raised by the petitioner have been adjudicated upon by both the courts below as such there is no justification for this contention of the learned counsel for Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:37747 ) 12 the petitioner that the executing Court was obliged to frame issues and to have permitted the objectors to lead evidence. 17. In Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi & others, (2021) 6 SCC 418, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the executing court must dispose of the execution proceedings within six months from the date of filing which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is as under:- “41. Having regard to the above background, wherein there is urgent need to reduce delays in the execution proceedings we deem it appropriate to issue few directions to do complete justice. These directions are in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 read with Article 141 and Article 144 of the Constitution of India in larger public interest to subserve the process of justice so as to bring to an end the unnecessary ordeal of litigation faced by parties awaiting fruits of decree and in larger perspective affecting the faith of the litigants in the process of law. 42. All courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall mandatorily follow the below mentioned directions: 42.1. In suits relating to delivery of possession, the court must examine the parties to the suit under Order 10 in relation to third-party interest and further exercise the power under Order 11 Rule 14 asking parties to disclose and produce documents, upon oath, which are in possession of the parties including declaration pertaining to third-party interest in such properties. 42.2. In appropriate cases, where the possession is not in dispute and not a question of fact for adjudication before the court, the court may appoint Commissioner to assess the accurate description and status of the property. 42.3. After examination of parties under Order 10 or production of documents under Order 11 or receipt of Commission report, the court must add all necessary or proper parties to the suit, so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and also make such joinder of cause of action in the same suit. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:37747 ) 13 42.4. Under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC, a Court Receiver can be appointed to monitor the status of the property in question as custodia legis for proper adjudication of the matter. 42.5. The court must, before passing the decree, pertaining to delivery of possession of a property ensure that the decree is unambiguous so as to not only contain clear description of the property but also having regard to the status of the property. 42.6. In a money suit, the court must invariably resort to Order 21 Rule 11, ensuring immediate execution of decree for payment of money on oral application. 42.7. In a suit for payment of money, before settlement of issues, the defendant may be required to disclose his assets on oath, to the extent that he is being made liable in a suit. The court may further, at any stage, in appropriate cases during the pendency of suit, using powers under Section 151 CPC, demand security to ensure satisfaction of any decree. 42.8. The court exercising jurisdiction under Section 47 or under Order 21 CPC, must not issue notice on an application of third party claiming rights in a mechanical manner. Further, the court should refrain from entertaining any such application(s) that has already been considered by the court while adjudicating the suit or which raises any such issue which otherwise could have been raised and determined during adjudication of suit if due diligence was exercised by the applicant. 42.9. The court should allow taking of evidence during the execution proceedings only in exceptional and rare cases where the question of fact could not be decided by resorting to any other expeditious method like appointment of Commissioner or calling for electronic materials including photographs or video with affidavits. 42.10. The court must in appropriate cases where it finds the objection or resistance or claim to be frivolous or mala fide, resort to sub-rule (2) of Rule 98 of Order 21 as well as grant compensatory costs in accordance with Section 35- A. 42.11. Under Section 60 CPC the term “… in name of the judgment-debtor or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf” should be read liberally to incorporate any other person from whom he may have the ability to derive share, profit or property. 42.12. The executing court must dispose of the execution proceedings within six months from the date of filing, which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay. 42.13. The executing court may on satisfaction of the fact that it is not possible to execute the decree without police assistance, direct the police station concerned to provide police assistance to such officials who are working towards execution of the decree. Further, in case an Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:37747 ) 14 offence against the public servant while discharging his duties is brought to the knowledge of the court, the same must be dealt with stringently in accordance with law. 42.14. The Judicial Academies must prepare manuals and ensure continuous training through appropriate mediums to the court personnel/staff executing the warrants, carrying out attachment and sale and any other official duties for executing orders issued by the executing courts.” 18. In the instant case, the eviction petition was allowed vide order dated 17.03.2011 and the same had attained finality but the Landlord/DH (respondent No.1 herein) has been deprived to enjoy the fruits of decree for the last more than 14 years. Therefore, a strong message is required to be sent to those litigants who are in the habit of filing frivolous objections in the execution proceedings and thereafter deprive the decree holders, fruits of the decree passed in their favour for years together. In fact, the objectors, including the petitioner herein, have left no stone unturned to deprive the fruits of decree to the decree holder, in the eviction petition filed in the year 2010. The present application is nothing but gross abuse of process of law and the main object of the petitioner is to delay the execution proceedings. 19. Thus, in view of my aforesaid discussion, the present application for stay is completely misplaced and devoid of any merits and has solely been filed with an intent to delay Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:37747 ) 15 the execution proceedings. Needless to state that if frivolous applications of the present kind are permitted to unreasonably and un-necessarily prolong the delivery of possession to a decree-holder in accordance with law, it would certainly amount to putting a premium on abuse of process of law. Hence the instant application, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. 20. Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the same has been given only for the purpose of deciding the present application. The application stands disposed of. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 11th November, 2025 (virender)