Phaliya vs Bhim Singh And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2035 P&H

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

107
                                               CR-5664-2018(O&M)
                                               Date of decision:24.03.2022

PHALIYA                                                        ...Petitioner

                                    Versus
BHIM SINGH AND ORS                                            ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present: Mr. Rajender Chhokar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate, for the respondents.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)

The hearing of the case is being held through video

conferencing on account of restricted functioning of the Courts.

The petitioner assails the correctness of the order passed by the

Executing Court, on 14.08.2018. A judgment and decree in a suit for grant of

permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering or

dispossessing the plaintiff except in due course of law was passed on

13.02.2012. The plaintiff filed an execution petition alleging that he has

been forcibly dispossessed on 18.07.2016. The defendant (Judgment

Debtor) contested the execution petition while assailing that he continues to

be in possession of the property and the stand of the plaintiff is factually

incorrect.

The Executing Court, while observing that there is no

requirement to frame an issue and permit the parties to lead evidence in this

regard, ordered delivery of possession with the help of the police.

The execution petition was filed under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC.

The decree holders were required to establish that they have been

1 of 2

CR-5664-2018(O&M) -2-

dispossessed in violation of the decree on 18.07.2016. The Executing Court

ought to have permitted the parties to lead evidence.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this court is of the view

that the parties should be permitted to lead evidence after framing the issues.

In the considered view of the Court, the following issue arises

for consideration:-

"Whether the decree holders were forcibly dispossessed

from the suit land on 18.07.2016? Onus on the decree

holder"

Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. The Executing

Court is directed to permit the parties to lead evidence.

Disposed of accordingly.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

March 24, 2022                                          (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt                                                            JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned                 : Yes/No
Whether reportable                        : Yes/No




                                         2 of 2