Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pritam Nath vs Ved Prakash Gupta And Others on 25 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057082
2024:PHHC:057082
CR-2350-2024 (O&M) - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
121 CR-2350-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 25.04.2024
Pritam Nath ...Petitioner.
Versus
Ved Prakash Gupta and others ....Respondents.
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
----
Present: Mr. Meenal Garg, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
Sukhvinder Kaur, J.
By way of present revision petition, the petitioner has
challenged order dated 27.09.2023, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Faridabad, vide which execution petition EXE/280/2021 filed by petitioner-
decree holder for execution of judgment and decree dated 25.07.2014, was
dismissed.
2. The relevant facts for adjudication of the present revision
petition are that vide judgment and decree dated 25.07.2014 passed by
learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Faridabad, the suit of the petitioner for
permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering into the
peaceful possession of the petitioner or from dispossessing him illegally and
forcibly from the property subject matter of that suit, was decreed. It has
been alleged that the said decree attained finality as Civil Appeal No.48 of
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057082
2024:PHHC:057082
CR-2350-2024 (O&M) - 2-
2014 preferred before the Appellate Court, Faridabad was dismissed on
07.05.2016, Regular Second Appeal No.5560 of 2016 filed before this Court
was dismissed on 09.12.2022 and Special Leave Petition (C) No.5465 of
2023 filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was dismissed on
27.03.2023.
3. In the year 2021, the petitioner filed an execution petition
seeking attachment of the property of the respondents and arrest of the
respondents for not obeying the aforementioned decree. It was alleged in the
said execution petition that the respondents were causing interference and
obstruction in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the aforesaid
property. The respondents preferred their objections under Section 47 read
with Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC, which were duly replied by the petitioner.
The Executing Court vide order dated 27.09.2023, dismissed the objections
of the respondents. But vide the said order the Executing Court also
dismissed the execution petition by holding that the execution petition was
vague. Hence, petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court by way of
filing the present revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon the
judgment of this Court in Dilbagh Singh and others Vs. Harpal Singh @
Harpal Singh Chela and others, PLR (2020) 197 P& H 601 has contended
that there is no requirement under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC to make specific
averments regarding dispossession or interference in possession. He has
further contended that the Executing Court failed to take into account the
fact that the averments of the respondents in their objections ipso facto
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057082
2024:PHHC:057082
CR-2350-2024 (O&M) - 3-
demonstrated that they were and have been interfering in the peaceful
possession of the petitioner qua the suit property and has taken shelter under
the false narrative purportedly being in possession of plot 19-B which is not
in existence. He has contended that the findings recording in para 12 of the
impugned order be set aside and obstruction and hindrance being caused in
the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the suit property be stopped.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has gone
through the relevant record.
6. It has been rightly held by the Executing Court that once it is
shown that the peaceful possession of DH has been disturbed by the JD or
interference has been caused therein, the DH has a valid cause of action to
file execution petition to enforce the judgment and decree. But perusal of
the execution petition reveals that it has not been disclosed therein that in
which manner the alleged interference or obstruction is being caused by the
JD into peaceful possession of DH. It has also been specifically recorded in
the impugned order that even during hearing of the petition on 16.09.2023,
the DH was granted an opportunity by the Court to clarify and assist the
Court by revealing the nature of interference being caused by the JD, so that
appropriate directions and order could be passed by the Court for the
removal of such interference or obstruction and even for taking appropriate
coercive measure as provided for in order XXI Rule 32 CPC. But despite
the said opportunity. the DH was unable to bring to the notice of the Court
the nature of interference or obstruction allegedly being caused into his
peaceful possession. It was incumbent on the part of the DH to state in
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057082
2024:PHHC:057082
CR-2350-2024 (O&M) - 4-
which manner the interference was being caused and some specific instance
might have been quoted that the JDs had been interfering in the DH's
possession. But when no specific facts and such circumstances have been
brought on record, then no order could be passed by the Court for directing
the JDs to desist from any act.
7. Facts of the case in Dilbagh Singh's case (supra) which has
been relied upon by counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts
of the case in hand as in the said case the JD has been dispossessed and the
Executing Court issued warrants of restoration of possession since he had
been dispossessed after passing the decree and the possession was to be
restored to him.
8. Thus, there being no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
order, no interference therewith is called for while exercising the revisional
jurisdiction. The present revision petition being bereft of any merits stands
dismissed.
9. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(SUKHVINDER KAUR)
JUDGE
25.04.2024.
komal
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/ No
Whether Reportable : Yes/ No
4 of 4
