Punjab-Haryana High Court
Banti (Deceased) Through Her Lrs ... vs Dwarka Jagdish And Ors on 27 September, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126734
CR-4532 of 2022 (1) 2023:PHHC:126734
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-4532 of 2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision:- 27.9.2023
Banti (deceased) through her LRs and another
....Petitioners
Vs.
Dwarka Jagdish and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Argued by:- Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate
for the respondents.
KARAMJIT SINGH, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by
petitioner/Judgment Debtors against the orders dated 16.09.2022,
(Annexure P-14 & Annexure P-15) passed by the Executing Court of
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur in Execution
No.85/2019, vide which the objections filed by the petitioners have
been dismissed and order dated 16.09.2022 (Annexure P-16) vide
which warrants of possession of suit property have been issued by the
aforesaid Executing Court.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Durga Dass son of
Uday Ram, Daropti widow of Charanji Lal, Ram Parkash and Amrit
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126734
CR-4532 of 2022 (2) 2023:PHHC:126734
Lal sons of Charanjit Lal and Parkashvati daughter of Charanjit Lal
filed suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners of suit land
measuring 56 Kanals 6 Marlas and they also sought possession of the
suit land. The suit was contested by the petitioners/their
predecessors-in-interest and finally the suit was dismissed by the trial
Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.02.1981. The appeal filed
by the plaintiffs against the said judgment and decree was also
dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide
judgment dated 08.10.1983. Being aggrieved the plaintiffs filed
regular second appeal and the same was allowed and suit of the
plaintiffs for possession was decreed by High Court vide judgment
dated 09.02.2005. The special leave petition filed by the other party
against the said judgment was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. Thereafter, the plaintiffs/their legal heirs have filed an
execution application wherein the petitioners filed objection petitions
and the same were dismissed by the learned Executing Court vide
impugned order, Annexures P-14 and P-15 and the said Court issued
warrants of possession of land measuring 56K 6 M vide order,
Annexure P-16.
3. Being aggrieved the present petition has been filed by
the petitioners.
4. I have heard the counsel for the parties.
5. The counsel for the petitioners while laying challenge to
the impugned orders has inter alia contended that the total land
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126734
CR-4532 of 2022 (3) 2023:PHHC:126734
mentioned in the plaint is measuring 225Kanals whereas the decree
passed in favour of the decree-holders is of land measuring 56K 6M
and the said area of 56K 6M is part of a joint land and as such, the
possession of the said land measuring 56K 6M cannot be delivered
on the basis of the warrants of possession issued by the Executing
Court. It has been further contended that after the passing of decree in
their favour regarding land measuring 56K 6M, the decree-holders
should have filed an application before the Revenue Authorities for
partition of the aforesaid joint land measuring 225 Kanal in order to
get possession of specific portion measuring 56K 6M of land. The
counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the Executing
Court cannot go beyond the decree and in the given circumstances
the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the objection
petitions filed by the petitioners should be allowed and the execution
application filed by the decree-holders deserves to be dismissed.
6. On the other hand, the counsel for the decree-holders
while supporting the impugned orders inter alia submits that the
petitioners have got no right, title or interest in the suit property and
they are in unlawful possession of the same as has been held by High
Court while allowing the regular second appeal filed by the plaintiffs.
The counsel for the decree-holders has further submitted that the
special leave petition filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It has been further argued that in order
to prolong the execution proceedings, the petitioners filed frivolous
objections which are rightly dismissed by the Executing Court vide
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126734
CR-4532 of 2022 (4) 2023:PHHC:126734
orders Annexures P-14 & P-15 and that there is no illegality in order
Ex.P16 whereby the Executing Court has issued warrants of
possession with regard to suit land measuring 56K 6M. So prayer is
made that the present petition be dismissed being devoid of merits.
7. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for
the parties.
8. The plaintiffs/decree holders filed suit for possession of
the suit land on the ground that they are the owners of the same. The
said suit was contested by the petitioners/JDs and the suit of plaintiffs
for possession was decreed by the High Court vide judgment dated
9.2.2005 in Regular Civil Appeal No.630 of 1984. The SLP filed
against the said judgment was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
9. The plea of the petitioners/JDs in the suit was that they
are the owners in possession of the suit land and otherwise also they
claimed ownership of the suit land on the basis of adverse possession.
The High Court while passing the judgment dated 9.2.2005 held that
petitioners/JDs have failed to prove their ownership regarding suit
property on the basis of title and they have also failed to prove that
they became owner of the suit land on the basis of adverse
possession. So it is evident that the petitioners/JDs have no right,
title or interest in the suit property and have got no right to raise
objection that decree holders could get the possession of specific area
measuring 56 kanals 6 marlas only after getting partitioned the entire
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126734
CR-4532 of 2022 (5) 2023:PHHC:126734
joint land measuring 225 kanals 4 marlas. Thus making it clear that
they have filed objection petitions in the executing Court to obstruct
execution of judgment and decree dated 9.2.2005 and to further
prevent the decree holders from enjoying the fruits of litigation.
10. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that
the executing Court rightly dismissed the objection petitions filed by
JDs vide impugned orders Ex.P14 and Ex.P15 and there is no
illegality in order Ex.P16 whereby the executing Court has issued
warrants of possession of the suit land measuring 56 kanals 6 marlas.
11. For the forgoing reasons the present revision petition is
dismissed being devoid of merits.
( KARAMJIT SINGH)
27.09.2023 JUDGE
Jiten/Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126734
5 of 5
