Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Parkash vs Ramesh And Ors on 17 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:052925
2023:PHHC:052925
CR-2232-2023(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-2232-2023(O&M)
Date of decision:-17.4.2023
Om Parkash
...Petitioner
Versus
Ramesh and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN
Present: Ms.Mehak Sawhney, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
H.S. MADAAN, J.
1. Under challenge in this revision petition is the order dated
24.2.2023 (Annexure P10) passed by Civil Judge(Sr.Divn.), Jhajjar vide
which in an execution petition filed by the decree holder/plaintiff Ramesh
against JD - defendant Bijender and another, third party objections
preferred by applicant/objector Om Parkash had been dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that to execute a decree
for recovery of Rs.15,50,000/- with interest and cost passed in his favour
as an alternative relief, plaintiff/decree-holder Ramesh had filed an
execution under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC against respondent/JD Bijender,
who did not make the payment, therefore the Court ordered attachment
and sale of his house. During the course of those proceedings,
applicant/petitioner Om Parkash had appeared and filed objections
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:052925
2023:PHHC:052925
CR-2232-2023(O&M) -2-
contending that JD No.1 Bijender was not owner in possession of the suit
property, rather the site neath the house had come to share of father of
objector in a family partition around 50 years ago wherein a pucca house
was constructed in the year 1990, which was later on modified in the year
2019, therefore, the property of objector be released from attachment and
auction of the house be stayed.
3. Those objections were resisted by the decree-holder
contending that when the Court had ordered the auction of the property of
JD No.1 Bijender then Bailiff Rammehar had visited the spot at village
Sehlanga, where Dhan Singh, Lambardar had identified property however
the objector had not raised any objection in the year 2018 when Bailiff
Rammehar had carried out munadi for the auction of property of JD
Bijender, which goes to show that no family partition had actually taken
place. According to the decree-holder the house of Om Parkash was
adjacent and on the western side of the house of JD Bijender and in the
year 2019, the objector Om Parkash while modifying his house had
merged approximately 8-10 feet of area of the house of JD No.1 Bijender
in collusion with him. Earlier an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC
was filed by this very petitioner/objector, which was dismissed on
19.10.2022. Now another set of objections has been filed under Order 21
Rule 58 CPC on the same facts. The decree-holder prayed for rejection of
the objections.
4. Vide the impugned order, the objections were dismissed,
leaving the petitioner/objector Om Parkash aggrieved and he has
approached this Court by way of filing the present revision petition.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:052925
2023:PHHC:052925
CR-2232-2023(O&M) -3-
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner besides going
through the record and I find that there is absolutely no merit in the
revision petition.
6. The Executing Court has clearly observed that though the
objector claims that land under his house was received by him from his
ancestor, who had actually obtained it in a family partition, which took
place around 50 years back but no particulars of that family partition have
been given and no document in support thereof has been placed on record.
It has also been taken note of that on 31.10.2017 when the Bailiff of the
Court had reported about the house of JD No.1 Bijender, that report was
verified by Dhan Singh, Lambardar as well as residents of the village and
at that time the objector had not agitated the matter in any manner.
It has also been taken note of that execution proceedings are
continuing since the year 2018 and it is not believable that till 10.12.2021,
the objector did not have any notice regarding the auction proceedings qua
the property of JD No.1 Bijender, who is his cousin brother having
residence in the adjoining house.
Another factor, which has been considered is that an
objection petition filed earlier by this very objector had been dismissed
due to non-appearance of petitioner on 19.10.2022. The Executing Court
has come to the conclusion that claim of the objector is not only baseless
but apparently mischievous and result of collusion between him and JD
No.1 Bijender and present objections are nothing but shadow proceedings
undertaken at the behest of JD No.1. I do not see any reason to disagree
with the Executing Court in any manner.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:052925
2023:PHHC:052925
CR-2232-2023(O&M) -4-
7. During the course of arguments though counsel for the
revision petitioner has referred to various affidavits furnished by some
residents of village and a certificate by Gram Panchayat with regard to
ownership of house vesting in the petitioner/objector but I find that these
affidavits and certificate of Gram Panchayat cannot be taken to be
documents of title, which may point out towards ownership of the
disputed property vesting in the petitioner/objector. As has been rightly
observed by the Executing Court, the objections seems to have been got
filed by the JD to avoid execution of the decree inasmuch as the decree-
holder after obtaining a decree for substantial amount of more than Rs.15
lakhs is still unable to reap fruit of that decree after passage of about 5
years.
8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has referred to
judgment Avtar Singh Versus Gurjeet Kaur, 1997(1) RCR(Civil) 6,
however, this judgment is not applicable to the present case due to the
different facts and circumstances and the context in which such
observations had been made.
9. The impugned order passed by the Executing Court is quite
detailed and well reasoned and it does not suffer from any illegality or
infirmity and is not having any element of arbitrariness or perversity. The
revisional jurisdiction of this Court is quite limited and considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to interfere with the
impugned order by way of exercising the revisional jurisdiction.
10. Finding no merit in the revision petition, the same stands
dismissed.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:052925
2023:PHHC:052925
CR-2232-2023(O&M) -5-
Since the main revision petition has been dismissed, the
miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
17.4.2023 (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:052925
5 of 5
