Devender Divedi vs Indira Chawla
2023 Latest Caselaw 158 P&H

CR-8450-2017                                                            -1-

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH


206                                            CR-8450-2017
                                               Date of Decision :06.01.2023


Devender Devedi                                                    ...Petitioner


                                 Versus

Indira Chawla                                                    ....Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:    Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

            None for the respondent.

                       ***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

Present petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for

setting aside the order dated 09.01.2017 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Court

below by which, the objections filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in respect of

the execution petition filed by respondent No.3 were dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff argues that keeping

in view an exparte decree dated 11.09.2006 in favour of the respondent, an

execution petition was filed and in pursuance to the proceedings of the said

execution petition, the possession of the premises in question was handed

over to the decree holder under the orders of the Court and the judgment

debtor i.e petitioner/plaintiff was not present at the time of handing over the

possession of the premises. As per the procedure, bailiff who was deputed

to hand over the possession, has taken into account certain articles which

were lying in the premises concerned and the same were placed before the

1 of 4

Court, according to which, 33 articles were recovered from the premises and

the same were released on superdari to the decree holder only.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the

grievance of the petitioner was that out of the 33 recovered articles, which

were handed over to him, only 17 articles belonged to him and those articles

too were handed over to him in damaged conditions. Further contention of

the petitioner-plaintiff is that the gold articles which were lying in the

premises have not been noted in the list of articles recovered, which has

caused prejudice to the petitioner-plaintiff and the petitioner-plaintiff has

filed an application before the trial Court for compensating him for the

supply of damaged articles, which were recovered from the premises at the

time of giving possession to the decree holder and also to return him or to

compensate him qua the gold articles, which were not given to him but

according to him were lying in the premises concerned when the possession

of the same was taken over by the decree holder.

The said application has been considered by the Court below

and the prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner has been declined vide order dated

09.01.2017 (Annexure P/6) on the ground that as the possession of the

articles, which were recovered from the premises in question was taken by

the petitioner-plaintiff after number of years, the same will naturally result

in some damage for which, decree holder cannot be made liable and further

no gold articles were recovered from premises in question as per the list

prepared by the bailiff, who was deputed to hand over the possession to the

decree holder. The said order is under challenge in the present revision

petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that though, the

2 of 4

possession was taken of the premises concerned in pursuance to the

execution petition, but the same was taken when the petitioner was not

present at the spot and the articles which were recovered from the premises

concerned have not been noticed in correct manner by the bailiff and the

gold articles which were lying in the premises concerned were missing for

which, the petitioner/plaintiff needs to be compensated.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and

have gone through the record with his able assistance.

The arguments of the petitioner/plaintiff have been dealt with

by the Court below in a manner required. Learned counsel for the

petitioner/plaintiff has not been able to deny that the petitioner claimed the

recovered articles after period of 05 years and only gave consent for 17

articles out of the 33 articles recovered. Once, the petitioner/plaintiff

himself delayed the recovery of the articles and delayed recovery of articles

by the petitioner/plaintiff from the decree holder, who had taken those

articles on superdari, have resulted in damage of the said articles and for the

said damage, decree holder cannot be made liable as it was the duty of the

petitioner-plaintiff to get the items recovered immediately when the

possession was taken by the decree holder in the year 2006.

In the present case, possession of the premises in question was

taken by the decree holder in the year 2006 and the application for recovery

of articles was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in the year 2011 i.e after the

delay of 05 years. This shows that in case there were articles of high value

lying in the said premises, the petitioner/plaintiff would have immediately

approached the Court for the recovery of the same. Argument of the learned

counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that as the revision petition was pending

3 of 4

before this Court due to which application was not filed for the possession

of recovered articles, is not valid ground. The petitioner/plaintiff could

have filed the application for the recovery of the items immediately in case

any high value items were lying in the premises, which needed to be

recovered by giving the description of the same. The claim raised by the

petitioner/plaintiff after 05 years shows that there were no valuable articles

lying in the premises concerned.

With regard to the claim of gold articles, nothing has been

mentioned as to what kind of gold articles were lying, which needed to be

recovered. In the absence of any such details, only bald statement of the

petitioner/plaintiff cannot be accepted. Further. there was no allegation

against the bailiff, who was deputed to hand over the possession of the

premises concerned to the decree holder and has prepared the list of articles,

which has been duly exhibited as RW3/B. Nothing has come on record that

the list of recovered articles was prepared in the manner not envisaged

under the law. That being so, it cannot be said that any material recovered

from the premises concerned was not noted by the bailiff in the list of

recovered items as Ex.RW3/B.

Keeping in view the above, no interference is called for by this

Court in the order dated 09.01.2017 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Court

below and the revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

January 06, 2023                     (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti                                         JUDGE
           Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
           Whether reportable :        Yes/No




                                     4 of 4