Execution objections were rightly rejected where the claimant’s identity and property did not match the decree.

The petitioner, Sethia Organisation, invoked Article 227 of the Constitution challenging Order No. 16 dated 20 April 2026 passed by the Additional D.C.D.R.C., Rajarhat in Execution Application No. DC/AB1/303/EA/90/2023, arising from the final judgment dated 31 October 2023 in Complaint Case No. DC/AB1/303/CC/619/2022.

The underlying proceedings concerned execution of a deed of conveyance in respect of a flat and garage situated on Plot No. 119, Block B, Patipukur Township.

The petitioner claimed that the land and building were owned by a partnership firm, whereas the original complaint and decree described “Sethia Organisation” as a proprietorship concern of Raj Kumar Sethia, with Smt. Sushma Saha as developer.

It contended that the partnership firm was not impleaded in the original proceeding, had received no notice, and was not a party to the agreement for sale relied upon in the complaint.

After learning of the execution proceedings, the petitioner sought the relevant records and permission to file objections; however, the executing Commission rejected its application, holding that its credentials did not correspond with those in the decree.

On the same date, the Commission appointed its Registrar to execute the deed of conveyance and directed submission of a draft deed.

Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the executing Commission’s rejection of the petitioner’s application seeking access to the records and leave to object to the execution.

Whether the petitioner’s claim of ownership and alleged non-joinder in the original complaint justified stay or obstruction of execution of the decree.

Whether the order appointing the Registrar to execute the deed of conveyance was liable to be set aside in the absence of a proper application before the executing forum addressing the petitioner’s grievance.

The Court exercised its limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which permits correction of jurisdictional errors, patent illegality, or material irregularity by subordinate courts and tribunals, but does not ordinarily substitute the High Court’s view for that of the executing forum.

The Court also applied the principle that an objection to execution must be raised through an appropriate application before the executing court or other competent forum and that the executing court proceeds on the identity and terms of the decree before it.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was expressly relied upon in the judgment.

The High Court found no jurisdictional error or material infirmity in the Commission’s refusal to entertain the petitioner’s application in the form presented.

The decree had been passed against Raj Kumar Sethia and Smt. Sushma Saha in their described capacities as proprietor and developer of Sethia Organisation, whereas the petitioner claimed to be a separate partnership firm; consequently, the petitioner’s credentials did not match the parties and property description reflected in the decree.

The Court further observed that the property claimed by the petitioner did not correspond with the property described in the decree.

Since the petitioner had not filed an appropriate application before the executing forum seeking stay of execution or otherwise presenting its substantive grievance, the High Court declined to interfere under Article 227.

The Court nevertheless preserved the petitioner’s liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy before the competent forum.

The dismissal was not treated as barring the petitioner from filing an appropriate application in accordance with law before the competent forum concerning its ownership and execution-related grievances.

Any interim order stood vacated, and a copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the Additional D.C.D.R.C., Rajarhat.