Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Pal Alias Bagga vs Inderpal Singh And Others on 19 January, 2023
RAJ KUMAR
2023.01.20 10:42
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
122
CR No.392 of 2023
DATE OF DECISION : 19" JANUARY, 2023
Manjit Pal @ Bagga
.... Petitioner
Versus
Inder Pal Singh & others
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT
3K OK OK 2
Present: Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate and
Ms. Amarjot Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.
3K OK OK 2
RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has filed this civil revision under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the impugned order
dated 05.11.2022 passed by the Civil Judge Sr. Division, Gurdaspur
whereby the objections filed by the applicant under Section 47 of the
CPC, were dismissed and warrants of possession have been issued.
The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has constructed his house on a land which was subject matter
of decree passed in a suit for redemption. However, the petitioner was
not served through any proceedings of the suit and the ex parte decree
was passed. Challenging the said judgment and decree the petitioner had
preferred a civil appeal No. CMA-31-2020 before the appellate court in
the year 2020. In the said appeal the contesting respondents have even
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document/judgment
RAJ KUMAR
2023.01.20 10:42
CR No.392 of 2023
put in appearance and the matter regarding the stay/interim order is
already under consideration of the lower appellate Court. However, the
respondents have initiated proceedings for execution in which the
warrant of possession has been issued, casting a threat upon the petitioner
of dispossession from his house. To assail the dispossession from his
house the petitioner has filed objections before the executing court.
However, the said objections have also been rejected, primarily on the
ground that similar objections already stand rejected in the year 2011.
The counsel has submitted that this is the only residential house of the
petitioner. Therefore, his possession deserves to be protected, at least, till
the appellate court takes a decision on the stay application moved by the
petitioner.
Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and having
perused the case file, this court is of the view that the objections filed by
the petitioner were already dismissed in the year 2011. Therefore, for
objections to the same effect, the second application may not even be
maintainable; as such. To that extent there is no illegality or perversity in
the conclusion arrived at by the executing court.
However, the facts revealed that after the earlier rejection of
the application for stay against dispossession, the petitioner has already
availed the remedy of appeal against the ex parte judgment and decree.
In the said appeal the decree holder/respondents even have put in
appearance and thereafter the matter is pending for consideration about
interim relief by the appellate Court. Therefore, it would not be
inappropriate to protect the petitioner till the appellate Court takes
decision qua the interim order.
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document/judgment
CR No.392 of 2023
Ordered accordingly.
Hence, lower appellate court is directed to take decision, in
accordance with law, at least, qua the interim prayer made by the
appellant before that court, at the earliest possible. Till the said decision
is taken by the appellate court the dispossession of the petitioner from the
house in question shall remain stayed.
The revision petition stands disposed of in the above said
terms.
19 JANUARY, 2023 (RAJBIR SEHRAWAT)
'raj JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No
Whether Reportable: Yes No
RAJ KUMAR
2023.01.20 10:42
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document/judgment
