Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inder Pal vs Mam Chand And Ors on 21 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
127
CR-2832-2022
Date of decision: 21.07.2022
Inder Pal .....Petitioner
Versus
Mam Chand and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present : Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)
The instant revision petition has been preferred under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated
25.05.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge,
Naraingarh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
impugned order (Annexure P-1) is against the settled law as it has been
passed without appreciating the factual position and the evidence on
record. He submits that the land bearing khasra No.59/36 was self
acquired property of the petitioner and hence could not have been
distributed between the parties without paying the value of the land. He
further submits that the Court below failed to take into account that
subsequent to a family settlement dated 18.06.1996, another family
settlement dated 24.12.1996 was effected between the parties. As per
the second settlement effected, it was agreed upon that the parties
including the respondents/plaintiffs would relinquish their rights and
would not claim 12 marlas of land from the petitioner. Learned counsel
still further submits that respondents No.1 and 2 did not deny the family
1 of 3
settlement as admittedly they did not file any reply to the objections of
the petitioner. He furthermore submits that the decree which had been
passed was passed by a Court, which lacked jurisdiction in respect of
the subject matter and was thus null and void in the eyes of law and
non-executable. In support, learned counsel has placed reliance upon
M/s East India Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. :
1991(2) SLJ 727.
I have heard learned counsel and perused the relevant
material on record.
The petitioner is challenging the merits of the decree in
execution proceedings on the ground that property bearing khasra
No.59/36 was not ancestral but his self acquired property and hence no
decree could have been passed in respect of that property. This Court,
however, is unable to concur with the submissions made by learned
counsel as it is settled proposition of law that an executing Court
cannot go behind the decree during execution proceedings. It is bound
to execute the decree as it stands in accordance with the terms set out
therein. The appropriate forum to challenge the decree on merits would
have been the appellate Court rather than the executing Court. His
submission thus qua the lack of jurisdiction of the trial Court to deal
with the property bearing khasra No.59/36 and the decree thus being
null and void is devoid of any merit. Further, Section 9 of the CPC
provides that the Courts shall (subject to provisions contained therein)
have the jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except those suits
whose cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. Coming to
the instant case there is no embargo on the jurisdiction of the trial Court
2 of 3
being a civil Court to decide a suit which is civil in nature. The
judgment of M/s East India Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shree Meenakshi
Mills Ltd. : 1991(2) SLJ 727 relied upon by learned counsel would not
in any manner come to the rescue of the petitioner as jurisdiction of the
civil Court qua the subject matter in that case was excluded by the
Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Control) Act, 1960. However, in the
instant case the jurisdiction of civil Court qua the subject matter is not
barred by any statute. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any
merit in the submissions made by learned counsel.
It has not been disputed by learned counsel that the
impugned judgment and decree was ever impugned by him before the
appellate Court.
Dismissed.
21.07.2022 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Vinay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
