Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswinder Kaur vs Prittam Singh And Others on 25 January, 2024
2024:PHHC:011392
C. R. No. 4955 of 2023 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.278
Case No. : C. R. No. 4955 of 2023
Date of Decision : January 25, 2024
Jaswinder Kaur .... Petitioner
vs.
Pritam Singh and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.
* * *
Present : Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate
and Mr. Deep Kanwal Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Pawandeep Singh, Advocate
for the respondents.
* * *
GURBIR SINGH, J. :
1. Challenge in this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is to the order dated 14.07.2023 (Annexure P-9),
passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nakodar
(hereinafter referred to as - the Trial Court), whereby Execution Petition
No.4 of 2021 filed by the petitioner, under Order 21 Rule 32 read with
Section 151 CPC, for compliance of judgment and decree dated 06.02.1996
passed by learned Trial Court in Civil Suit No.600/1993 titled as Bachan
Singh vs. Pritam Singh and others, has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts, as culled out from they petition, are that Bachan
Singh (father of the petitioner) was owner of one property measuring 5.75
marlas situated in village Turna, Tehsil Shahkot, District Jalandhar. He filed
2024:PHHC:011392
civil suit for grant of permanent injunction, which was decreed vide
judgment and decree dated 06.02.1996 (Annexure P-3). Bachan Singh
expired on 17.11.2003 and the petitioner, being Class-I legal heir and on the
basis of registered Will dated 27.12.1996, has inherited all his properties and
has stepped into the shoes of decree-holder Bachan Singh. Judgment-debtor
Nand Singh had also died after passing of the judgment and decree dated
06.02.1996 and Chanan Singh stepped into his shoes and is bound by the
aforesaid judgment and decree.
3. After passing of the said judgment and decree, judgment-debtor
Pritam Singh, along with his son Darshan Singh and his brother's son
Chanan Singh, by disobeying the said judgment and decree, has forcibly
encroached upon major part of property owned by decree-holder from its
western side along with side there house and haveli and further raised threats
of further intentional disobedience of said judgment and decree. Judgment-
debtor Pritam Singh and his son Darshan Singh, even by intentional
disobedience of judgment and decree, have demolished the house-wall
falling on western side of property of the petitioner/decree-holder and has
encroached upon the major portion which is part of the decree and has also
affixed a big gate of more than 10 feet and a small gate of about 4-5 feet in
width in the said wall and has also raised a ramp through property of decree-
holder by using force and threats.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned
Executing Court has failed to take into consideration that during the
pendency of execution proceedings, a compromise dated 12.08.2006
(Annexure p-4) was effected between the parties, whereby respondent no.3
2024:PHHC:011392
was only given the right to install a gate. However, respondents no.1 and 2
were not given any authority to do any act in violation of of judgment and
decree dated 06.02.1996. The Court below dismissed the application filed
by the petitioner without giving any fair opportunity to lead evidence on
record that respondents are interfering into the peaceful possession of the
petitioner over the suit land and have also encroached upon the part of the
suit land. The petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court
passed in the case titled Satish Kumar vs. Jagdish Chander - Law Finder
Doc Id # 1389842.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the
petition is barred by limitation. No execution can be filed after 12 years of
passing of the decree. The property which is subject matter of the aforesaid
judgment and decree and some other property owned by the respondents/
judgment-debtors and their representatives is being used as common rasta
for ingress and outgress to the houses of Bachan Singh, Pritam Singh and
Nand Singh. The main gate of the houses of the respondents and their
representatives open towards the property in question. The petitioner/
decree-holder is neither owner nor in possession of the property comprised
in petition. Bachan Singh had filed execution application for execution of
decree dated 06.02.1996, in which compromise was effected and said
execution petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Bachan Singh had also
given up some portion of the property towards the common rasta.
Respondents no.2 and 3 also gave an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to Bachan
Singh under the compromise against the previous compromise which was
acted upon by the parties to save their properties/houses which respondents
2024:PHHC:011392
no.2 and 3 have already taken. Bachan Singh withdrew the execution
application by making statement before the Lok Adalat that the execution
was fully satisfied. So, it has been argued that there is no triable issue. The
petitioner cannot be given any opportunity to lead the evidence.
6. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the case file.
7. The predecessor of the petitioner filed a suit for permanent
injunction, which was decreed on 06.02.1996, whereby decree for permanent
injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering in the
possession of the plaintiff/petitioner over the plot in dispute was passed.
Bachan Singh - decree-holder filed execution petition, in which compromise
was effected on 12.08.1996, which reads as under :-
"The below mentioned respectable persons have got
affected a compromise regarding the complaint which
was submitted by Chanchal Singh son of Kehar Singh,
resident of Village Turna and Darshan Singh son of
Prittam Singh etc. In this regard as well a complaint
has been given by Darshan Singh, Chanan Singh son of
Nand Singh, Baljeet Singh son of Darshan Singh,
Harcharan Singh son of - not legible -. The decision
taken by the respectable is that no one will keep their
cattle in the passage. Chanan Singh shall install a gate
of 5 ft. width. The wall of Darshan Singh, which is
removed shall be re-erected in straight line. The cases
which are filed by both the parties against each other
in the court shall be withdrawn by them. Chanan Singh
shall install a gate of 5 ft width after raising a pillar of
1 ft. with adjacent to the wall of Darshan Singh. No
other door or window shall be installed on this place.
2024:PHHC:011392
In lieu of this, Darshan Singh son of Prittam Singh,
Chanan Singh son of Nand Singh shall pay an amount
of Rs. 1 lac in equal share. The said amount shall be
paid to Sukhwinder Singh son of Ajit Singh, resident of
Village Donewal in advance before withdrawal of the
cases. After withdrawal of the cases, the amount shall
be handed over to Chanan Singh. It has been settled by
the consent of both the parties and without any
pressure. The complaint may be filed in the office."
8. Resultantly, the aforesaid execution application was dismissed as
withdrawn on 02.09.2006 before the Lok Adalat. Now, petition under Order
21 Rule 32 read with Section 151 CPC has been filed, for compliance of
judgment and decree dated 06.02.1996, by removing encroachment by
demolishing the eastern wall of house of judgment-debtors falling towards
western side of the said property. The prayer clause of the said petition,
which was filed on 16.02.2021, reads as under :-
"10. Hence it is prayed that in the interest of justice an
order as required under Order 21 rule 32 may be
passed for the just abeyance (sic.) obeyance of
Judgement and decree dated 6-2-1996 passed in civil
suit no.Cs/600/93 as fully detailed in the head note of
petition and further compliance of said decree may be
got effected (a) By removing encroachment by
demolishing the eastern wall of house of J.Ds falling
towards western side of the said property and closing
gate and door fitted in the said wall and to restore the
plot/property of petitioner in terms of decree (b)
Prohibitory order of Injunction may be passed to stop
the said respondents them self or through any other
person claiming through them from further disobeying
2024:PHHC:011392
the above judgment and decree. (c) Properties of J.Ds
and their representatives may be attached till
compliance of said decree. (d) Jds/respondents may be
put behind bars being wilful disobeyers. (e) Attached
properties may be sold for compliance of judgment and
decree. (f) Any other relief deemed fit under the
circumstances may be granted to the petitioner/D.H to
meet with ends of justice."
9. It is well settled that a decree becomes enforceable the moment
judgment is delivered. Under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, the
limitation to execute a decree is 12 years, when the decree becomes
enforceable. In the present case, the decree was passed on 06.02.1996. It
could be enforced with a period of 12 years. Earlier, the execution
application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC was filed, in which compromise
was effected and the said execution application was dismissed as withdrawn
on 02.09.2006 before the Lok Adalat. Since the petition under Order 21
Rule 32 read with Section 151 CPC has been filed on 16.02.2021 for
obeying the decree dated 06.02.1996, so, same is barred by limitation and
the decree in question has become unenforceable.
10. Since the execution application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC is
barred by limitation, there is no ground to interfere in the impugned order
passed by learned Trial Court and there is no need to grant any opportunity
to the petitioner to lead evidence in order to prove the averments made in the
petition. The authority cited by the petitioner is of no help to the petitioner.
11. In view of what has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs, I
do not find any merit in the present revision petition, which is accordingly
dismissed.
2024:PHHC:011392
12. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of along with
this judgment.
January 25, 2024 (GURBIR SINGH)
monika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No.
Whether reportable ? Yes/No.
