Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chanderwati And Another vs M/S Rajinder Kumar Arjun Singh And ... on 1 December, 2022
CR-309-2021(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-309-2021(O&M)
Date of decision:-1.12.2022
Smt.Chanderwati and another
...Petitioners
Versus
M/s Rajinder Kumar Arjun Singh and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN
Present: Mr.A.K. Khubbar, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate
for respondents No.1 and 2.
****
H.S. MADAAN, J.
1. Under challenge in this revision petition are two separate
orders dated 12.3.2020 Annexure P3 and Annexure P4, order Annexure
P5 dated 1.2.2021 passed by Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Kurukshetra in
Execution Petition No.16 of 2019 as well as warrants of possession dated
3.2.2021 issued by the said Court.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that a Civil Suit No.456 of
2013 for declaration, possession with consequential relief of permanent
injunction filed by plaintiffs M/s Rajinder Kumar Arjun Singh,
Commission Agent, Ladwa, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra
1 of 5
CR-309-2021(O&M) -2-
through its partner Ram Narayan, resident of Ladwa, Tehsil Thanesar,
District Kurukshetra and said Ram Narayan against the defendants
Rajinder Kumar, resident of Niwarsi, now resident of House No.2190,
Sector 32, Urban Estate, Ludhiana, Smt.Chanderwati wife of Sadhu Singh
and Kamlesh Kaur wife of Sarup Singh, both residents of village Sonti,
Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra was decreed with costs by Civil
Judge (Sr.Divn.), Kurukshetra vide judgment and decree dated 31.1.2015
resultantly sale deed bearing No.8495/1 dated 5.12.2006 was declared as
illegal, null and void and was set aside along with mutation No.746
sanctioned on the basis of that sale deed and a decree for possession with
consequential relief of permanent injunction was passed in favour of the
plaintiffs by restraining defendants No.2 and 3 from alienating,
transferring, mortgaging the suit land to any other person or from
changing the nature of the suit land in any manner.
3. That judgment and decree were challenged by the defendants
by filing an appeal before learned District Judge, Kurukshetra, which was
assigned to learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, who vide
judgment and decree dated 19.9.2018 dismissed the said appeal. The
decree holders then filed an execution application before the Court of
Civil Judge(Sr.Divn.), Kurukshetra craving for issuance of directions to
the defendants to comply with the judgment and decree and to hand over
the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs and cost of the
suit and execution be got paid to the plaintiffs/decree holders from the
defendants/JDs.
4. Notice of the execution application was given to
2 of 5
CR-309-2021(O&M) -3-
defendants/JDs No.2 and 3, who had put in appearance through counsel,
whereas issuance of notice to defendant/JD No.1 was dispensed with for
the reason that sale deed executed by such JD had been set aside.
Defendants/JDs No.2 and 3 had not filed any objections despite the case
having been adjourned several times, as such vide order 12.3.2020
(Annexure P3), the Executing Court directed issuance of warrants of
possession qua the suit property against JDs No.2 and 3 for 30.3.2020.
The concerned SHO was directed to provide sufficient police help to the
executing official.
5. Another order passed on that very i.e. on 12.3.2020 vide
which the objection raised by JDs No.2 and 3 that they had preferred RSA
No.1744 of 2019 in Punjab & Haryana High Court, which was pending
and application for grant of stay was under consideration, therefore, the
Court was legally bound to a wait decision of the RSA. That objection
was contested on behalf of the decree-holders submitting that since no
stay order had been passed by the Appellate Court, the proceedings could
not be stayed; furthermore, the judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court had been upheld by the First Appellate Court with no stay order
having been passed by the High Court. The Executing Court vide order
dated 12.3.2020 observing that mere pendency of an appeal before the
High Court does not amount to automatic stay of execution application
and that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree, rejected that
objection. Since the warrants of possession dated 3.2.2021 could not be
executed, those were ordered to be executed with police help, leaving the
JDs No.2 and 3 aggrieved and they have preferred the present revision
3 of 5
CR-309-2021(O&M) -4-
petition.
6. Notice of the revision petition was given to
respondents/decree holders and they have put in appearance through
counsel.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going
through the record and I find that the revision petition is absolutely
without merit.
8. The plaintiffs have succeeded in the trial Court despite
vehement contest offered by the defendants and first appeal filed by the
defendants against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court had
been dismissed. Merely because the defendants have preferred an appeal
before this Court does not mean that the judgment and decree passed by
the trial Court is not to be executed and the proceedings are to come to a
standstill. The litigant has to wait for a long time to get his dispute
adjudicated upon by the Courts and if the litigant is successful and a
decree is passed in his favour, he gets actual relief when the decree is
executed otherwise the decree-sheet is just a piece of paper. If a wily
litigant exploiting the technicalities and loopholes in the procedure is
successful in prolonging the execution of the decree, that would rather
result in failure of the justice causing anguish and frustration to a litigant,
who pursues the matter for years and years and when wait for actual
justice becomes endless. Designs of such type of people to stretch the
proceedings to the extent possibly cannot be allowed to succeed, rather
every effort is to be made to dispense justice to a litigant promptly and
expeditiously.
4 of 5
CR-309-2021(O&M) -5-
9. I find the orders passed by the Executing Court to be legal
and valid without any element of arbitrariness or violative of any legal
provision.
10. Learned counsel for the revisionists while relying upon
judgment Kashmir Singh Versus Tana and others, 2000(4) RCR(Civil) 6
by a Single Judge of this Court has submitted that the decree passed in
this case is for possession of share in the joint property and only joint
possession can be given to the decree-holders. This submission by learned
counsel for the revisionists is to be taken into view by the Executing Court
while getting the decree executed.
11. There is absolutely no scope for interference with the orders
passed by the Executing Court, which are detailed and well reasoned.
12. Thus, finding no merit in the civil revision petition, the same
stands dismissed.
1.12.2022 (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
