Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunil Kumar Gupta vs Saravjeet Singh(Since Deceased) ... on 26 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:059877
CR No. 2273 of 2023 -1-
Neutral citation : 2023:PHHC:059877
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No. 2273 of 2023 (O&M)
Date of decision : 26.4.2023
...
Sunil Kumar Gupta
................Petitioner
vs.
Saravjeet Singh (since deceased) through his LRs
.................Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan
Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma-I, Advocate for the petitioner.
...
H. S. Madaan, J.
Under challenge in this revision petition is order dated
31.3.2023, Annexure P-7, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Chandigarh, in execution petition titled 'Saravjeet Singh vs. Sunil
Kumar Gupta', vide which application Annexure P-5, dated
25.1.2023, filed by the petitioner - judgment debtor, for dismissal of
execution petition, on the ground that the decree has become nullity
and is inexecutable on account of subsequent facts, had been
dismissed.
Briefly stated, facts of the case are that, petitioner - decree
holder Saravjeet Singh (since dead), through his legal
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:059877
representatives, had filed an execution application under Order 21
Rule 11 CPC, against Sunil Kumar Gupta, judgment debtor, for
claiming possession from the judgment debtor of the premises
mentioned in the execution application i.e. two sheds measuring 20' x
42' and 10' x 42', situated in Block No. 65, Gate No.1, Village Dariya,
U.T., Chandigarh, on the basis of judgment and decree dated
4.5.2015.
On getting notice, the judgment debtor had put in appearance
and filed an application for dismissal of the execution application,
contending that judgment debtor has already handed over possession
to original owners Ramesh Chander and Suresh Chander on
18.8.2018, as per order dated 1.8.2018 passed by Ms. Nazmeen
Singh, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh.
That application was resisted by the petitioner - decree
holder. Vide impugned order dated 31.3.2023, the application was
dismissed, leaving the respondent- judgment debtor aggrieved and he
has filed the present revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner,
besides going through the record.
Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued as per
the grounds taken in the application, further contending that in view
of the subsequent notification issued by the Chandigarh
Administration on 9.12.2020, wherein the land falling under Ward
No. 9, i.e. including land in question falls within the jurisdiction of
Municipal Corporation, as such provisions of Rent Act are applicable
and resultantly, the judgments and decrees passed earlier on the basis
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:059877
of provisions of earlier Transfer of Property Act, have become
inoperative and non-executable. For that reason, the execution
application be dismissed and learned counsel for revision petitioner
has referred to various judgments, in support of his submissions i.e.,
Ram Narain and others vs. Ram Lal and others 2004 (1) PLR 634;
Sat Narain Saini vs. Smt. Sita Wati and another 1980 (1) RCR
(Rent) 589 and Krishan Lal and another vs. Krishan 2010 (2) RCR
(Rent) 87.
However, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and
going through the judgments cited by him, I do not find myself in
agreement with counsel for the revision petitioner and do not see any
reason to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order
passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, is quite
detailed and well reasoned. It does not suffer from any illegality or
infirmity.
In the impugned order itself it has been mentioned that after
the suit filed by the plaintiff against defendant judgment debtor was
decreed and the defendant was ordered to be ejected from the suit
premises i.e. two sheds within two months and the plaintiff was
found entitled to recover mesne profits @ Rs.31,500/- per month
alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 1.5.2015. The defendant -
judgment debtor had filed an appeal, which was also dismissed vide
judgment dated 19.2.2016.
The plea set up by the judgment debtor that he has already
handed over the possession to the original owners i.e. Ramesh
Chander and Suresh Chander, was considered and rejected. Another
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:059877
objection raised that the present execution is not maintainable, in
view of subsequent notification issued by the Chandigarh
Administration on 9.12.2020, was also considered, but no reason was
found to accept the same, observing that once the judgment has been
passed by the Court and till the time it is not set aside in appeal, or
revision, the same would be binding upon the parties and Executing
Court has to get the decree/order executed. No merit was found in the
third objection raised that the decree holder was playing fraud with
Court, observing that the judgment debtor has already lost in appeal
and he cannot time and again raise those objections, which have
already been adjudicated.
The judgments referred to by learned counsel for the
petitioner, are not applicable due to different facts and circumstances
and the context in which such observations have been made.
Even otherwise, as mentioned in order dated 16.12.2021,
passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, copy of which
has been placed on record as Annexure P-8, an RSA is pending in the
High Court. In that appeal the High Court had initially stayed the
proceedings of the present execution, however, vide order 14.8.2018,
in CM 6714-C-2018 in/and RSA 1599-2016, the High Court had
directed the judgment debtor to deposit the arrears of mesne profits
within a month, observing further that in case the amount was not
deposited on or before 10.9.2018, the interim order would be liable to
be vacated. That order was not complied with. Therefore, interim
order was not extended. The High Court had directed that appellant
may produce copy of notification before the Executing Court, which
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:059877
may then proceed further in accordance with law. That stay has been
vacated.
Under the circumstances, the executing Court was justified
in not dropping the proceedings.
There is no merit in the revision petition. The same stands
dismissed.
( H.S. Madaan )
26.4.2023 Judge
chugh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No
Whether reportable Yes / No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:059877
5 of 5
