Himachal Pradesh High Court
Varinder Kumar Katoch vs Krishan Lal (Deceased) Through His Lr ... on 6 August, 2024
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CMPMO No. 225 of 2024
Decided on: 6th August 2024
_______________________________________________________________
.
Varinder Kumar Katoch ....Petitioner
Versus
Krishan Lal (deceased) through his LR Sh. Gaurav Kumar
..........Respondent
_________________________________________________________________
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1 Whether approved for reporting?
_________________________________________________________________
For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Surinder Prakash Sharma,
Advocate.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Objections preferred by the Judgment Debtor to
the Execution Petition instituted by the respondent-Decree
Holder were dismissed by the learned Executing Court on
25.11.2023. Feeling aggrieved, the Judgment Debtor has
preferred this petition.
2. Heard learned counsel on both sides and
considered the case file.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
3. Civil suit was instituted by the respondent in the
year 1999 against the petitioner claiming relief of possession
of the demised premises. An amount of Rs.25,200/- was also
.
sought to be recovered from him. Civil suit was decreed in
favour of the respondent on 26.07.2006. The petitioner-
Judgment Debtor was also found in arrears of rent w.e.f.
01.11.1996 to 30.10.1999.
Respondent-Decree Holder instituted Execution
Petition for enforcement of the judgment and decree dated
26.07.2006. The petition was dismissed in default.
Respondent-Decree Holder preferred another
execution petition within the limitation period. To this
execution petition, the petitioner-Judgment Debtor filed
objections on the grounds that the premises in dispute were
acquired by Shree Nandikeshwar Chamunda Temple. The
acquisition was made during the pendency of the civil suit.
The petitioner-Judgment Debtor/Objector had handed over
possession of the premises to Shree Nandikeshwar
Chamunda Temple prior to the decision of the civil suit.
Therefore, he was not liable to pay any arrears of rent.
4. Learned Executing Court on considering the case
record held that:
(i) There was a litigation between Shree Chamunda
Devi Temple and the respondent-Decree Holder and others.
.
RSA No. 117 of 2002 was decided by this Court on
12.11.2012. The appeal was partly allowed. Shree Chamunda
Devi Temple (appellant therein) and respondents No.2 to 6
(therein) were directed to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- to the
present respondent-decree holder alongwith interest from the
date of filing of the suit. i.e. 27.08.1991.
(ii) From the judgment and decree passed in the
aforesaid litigation, it became evident that gift deed dated
08.07.1991, relied upon by Shree Chamunda Devi Temple,
had been declared as null and void. The present respondent-
decree holder had paid a sum of Rs.90,000/- to defendants
No.1 to 5 (in the aforesaid litigation). The present respondent-
decree holder was put in possession of the suit land; The
suit land was later acquired under notification No.
122/12/05 issued by the Land Acquisition Collector and
award was passed by it on 10.06.2008 .
(iii) Thus, it was the respondent-decree holder who
was in possession of the suit land.
5. In view of the emerging facts, learned Trial Court
justly held that the plea of handing over the possessing of the
demised premises or payment of arrears of rent to Shree
.
Nandikeshwar Chamunda Temple, as taken by the petitioner-
judgment debtor, was not available to him. The premises were
in possession of the respondent-decree holder. The
respondent was to be paid the arrears of rent and not Shree
Nandikeshwar Chamunda Temple.
It is not the case of the petitioner-judgment debtor
that factual observations made in the impugned order were
contrary to the documents available in the file of learned
Executing Court. It is also not the case of respondent-
Judgment Debtor that arrears of rent were paid by him to the
respondent-Decree Holder. Hence, impugned order dated
25.11.2023, dismissing the objections preferred by the
petitioner-judgment debtor, does not warrant any
interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,
also stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Judge
August 06, 2024
R.Atal
