Punjab-Haryana High Court

Balwinder Singh vs Beero (Since Deceased Through ... on 7 July, 2023

                                                                                     2023:PHHC:085777
       CR-3526-2018                                                                              -1-

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                         CHANDIGARH
       256
                                                                    CR-3526-2018
                                                                    Date of decision : 07.07.2023

       Balwinder Singh
                                                                                       ..... Petitioner
                                                 Versus

       Beero (Since deceased through Legal Heirs) & Another
                                                                                     ..... Respondents

       CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI

       Present:                Mr. Ranjodh Singh Sidhu, Advocate
                               for the petitioner.

                               None for the respondents.
                                     ****

AMARJOT BHATTI J. (ORAL)

Balwinder Singh - petitioner has filed revision against impugned

order dated 13.04.2018 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Civil Judge Senior

Division, Tarn Taran vide which the Court has issued warrants of possession and

for setting aside order dated 13.04.2018 (Annexure P-8) vide which the said Court

has ordered to deposit subsistence allowance for the civil imprisonment of

petitioner/JD.

2. It is submitted that Beero, mother of the respondents filed Civil Suit

bearing No. 448/1996 i.e. suit for declaration regarding ownership of house in

dispute against the petitioners which was decreed in her favour on 07.06.2000 by

learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Tarn Taran. The copy of judgment is Annexure

P-1. Jasbir Singh and Balwinder Singh sons of Kartar Singh filed appeal against

the said order which was also dismissed. The legal heirs of Beero i.e. the

respondents filed petition under Order 21 Rule 32 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 LALIT SHARMA 2023.07.10 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment 2023:PHHC:085777

for execution of decree dated 07.06.2000. The copy of petition is Annexure P-2.

Apart from civil litigation, there was criminal litigation going on between the

parties. One FIR No. 52 dated 19.06.2007 was registered under Sections 324, 34

of Indian Penal Code against the respondent, whereas, the cross-version was

recorded from the side of respondent under Sections 326, 325, 324, 323, 34 of

Indian Penal Code against the petitioner side regarding the same occurrence.

Thereafter, with the intervention of relatives and other respectables, the matter was

compromised between the parties and it was decided to end the litigation by

withdrawing their respective cases. The copy of compromise is Annexure P-3. On

the basis of compromise, the FIR and the cross-version were quashed vide order

dated 15.11.2017, which is Annexure P-4. There was another civil case titled

"Seema Kaur Vs Balwinder Singh", which was withdrawn by the petitioner on

12.11.2016 in lieu of said compromise. Thereafter, the respondent did not

withdraw the petition under Order 21 Rule 32 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908

despite the aforesaid compromise. The copy of objections filed by the present

petitioner/Judgment Debtor is Annexure P-5. The reply submitted by the Decree

Holder is Annexure P-6. However, the objections were dismissed vide impugned

order dated 13.04.2018, which is Annexure P-7. The Court has further ordered to

deposit subsistence allowance for civil imprisonment of Judgment Debtor. The

copy of order dated 13.04.2018 is Annexure P-8. It is argued that once the matter

was compromised between the parties, the respondents were duty bound to

withdraw the present petition. The learned Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division),

Tarn Taran has failed to consider this aspect and wrongly declined the objections

vide impugned order dated 13.04.2018 (Annexure P-7) and the order regarding

deposit of subsistence allowance of the same date (Annexure P-8) is without LALIT SHARMA 2023.07.10 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment 2023:PHHC:085777

justification. It is prayed that the aforesaid orders are liable to be set aside on the

basis of compromise dated 31.10.2016, which is Annexure P-3.

3. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the

petitioner and have carefully gone through the documents relied upon by learned

counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner admitted that Beero, mother of the

respondents filed civil suit seeking declaration regarding ownership of the house

which was decreed in her favour vide judgment dated 07.06.2000. Copy of this

judgment is Annexure P-1 and it is also conceded that the appeal was also

dismissed. Thereafter, the legal heirs of Beero filed application under Order 21

Rule 32 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for the execution of aforesaid decree. The

learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon one compromise dated

31.10.2016 on the basis of which it is argued that the execution cannot proceed

further as the respondents/Decree Holders are bound to withdraw the said

execution. It is also matter of record that one FIR and cross-version was registered

against the petitioner and the respondents which was later on compromised and

thereafter, the FIR and cross-version were quashed in Criminal Misc. No.M-41143

of 2016, Criminal Misc. No.M-41234 of 2016, vide order dated 15.11.2017, which

is Annexure P-4. I have also gone through the contents of compromise dated

31.10.2016 (Annexure P-3) where there is specific reference of compromise

regarding the aforesaid FIR and the cross-version. There is reference of civil

litigation in the compromise, according to which the parties had agreed that both

the parties will vacate the house till 31.01.2017 and it shall be sold and if both the

parties agreed then they can remove the building material and their respective

vacant side can be sold. As per clause 2, both the parties shall withdraw their

respective cases and as per clause 3, after sale of 7 marlas, it shall be given to first LALIT SHARMA 2023.07.10 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment 2023:PHHC:085777

party i.e. Balwinder Singh s/o Kartar Singh and others and second party i.e.

Balwinder Singh s/o Gurbax Singh and others shall be given cash amount. Now in

pursuance of this compromise, both the parties were required to perform their part

of condition detailed in the compromise. The reply to the objection clarifies that

the present petitioner had failed to perform their part of compromise, as a result of

which the civil litigation was not withdrawn as decided in the compromise dated

31.10.2016, clause 2. The petition under Order 21 Rule 32 read with Section 151

of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was filed by the legal heirs of Beero. On

17.05.2013, the terms of compromise could not materialize, therefore, the

execution was proceeded with and accordingly, the objections were rightly

declined by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) by passing impugned

order dated 13.04.2018. In the absence of compromise, the Executing Court is