Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaspal Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 May, 2024
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065683-DB
CWP-18901-2019(O&M) (1)
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
[114]
CWP-18901-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 10.05.2024
JASPAL SINGH AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
Present: Mr. Bhrigu Dutt Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Ish Puneet Singh, Advocate for respondent No.7.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL)
1. As prayed for, by the learned counsel for the parties, the main
case i.e. CWP-18901-2019, is preponed from 05.08.2024, to today itself and is
taken up on board for hearing.
2. One of the co-petitioners in the instant writ petition, is the
plaintiff in Civil Suit No.CS/1246/2016 (Annexure P-4), which was instituted
against the defendants therein, who are however not impleaded as party-re-
spondents, in the instant writ petition.
3. The relief claimed in the said suit was for the rendition of a
decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants therein, for
therebys, theirs not undertaking any construction activities or making
encroachments upon Gair Mumkin Pond, existing upon the suit khasra
numbers.
4. The learned counsels appearing for the parties today before this
Court are, ad idem, that the judgment and decree (Annexure P-4), became
passed on the said civil suit, wherebys, the plaintiff's suit for the said relief
became decreed to the extent as mentioned in the decree sheet.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065683-DB
CWP-18901-2019(O&M) (2)
5. Furthermore, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting
litigants are also, ad idem, that the said decree has acquired conclusive and
binding effect, as no appeal thereagainst had been instituted by the aggrieved
defendants, before the learned First Appellate Court. Resultantly therebys,
judgment and decree (Annexure P-4), was required to be executed, through the
plaintiff, who is one of the co-petitioners in the instant writ petition, thus
instituting an execution petition before the Court of first instance. However,
such an execution petition has not been filed.
6. Nonetheless contrarily, the instant writ petition has been filed
before this Court, claiming thereins relief, that the said judgment and decree
enclosed in Annexure P-4, be directed to be enforced through a mandamus
being made upon the police officials concerned, to provide police assistance
for the relevant purpose, especially given despite the said request being made
upon them by BDPO concerned, yet rather the said request remaining
unheeded.
7. The unassailed judgment and decree of permanent prohibitory
injunction enclosed in Annexure P-4, when has attained conclusive and
binding effect, therebys, the plaintiff, who is one of the co-litigants, in the
instant writ petition, and, who appears to file a representative suit, thus on
behalf of all the village proprietary body, when has not yet filed an execution
petition, for therebys, seeking the execution of Annexure P-4, rather has
chosen to along with the other co-petitioners, thus institute the instant writ
petition before this Court with the prayer(supra) therein. Resultantly, in the
wake of the above, the present writ petition is not maintainable.
8. Therefore, in case this Court proceeds to assign the relief(supra)
to the petitioners, despite the fact that one of the co-petitioners in the plaint, is
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065683-DB
CWP-18901-2019(O&M) (3)
a valid recipient of a binding and conclusive verdict as enclosed in Annexure
P-4, therebys, this Court will be assuming onto itself the jurisdiction of the
learned Executing Court, which thus, at this stage, rather would be grossly
impermissible
9. Be that as it may, for ensuring that complete justice is done to the
plaintiff decree holder, who is one of the co-petitioners in the instant writ
petition, as such, as prayed for, by the learned counsel for the petitioners, leave
is granted to the plaintiff/co-petitioner, namely, Jugal Kishore, the recipient of
the conclusive decree of permanent prohibitory injunction (Anneuxre P-4), to
forthwith institute an execution petition before the learned Executing Court
concerned, for therebys, enabling the latter to make an efficacious and
successful execution of judgment and decree (Annexure P-4), thus, against the
defendants in the civil suit concerned.
10. The said application for execution petition be forthwith filed, and
thereupon, the learned Executing Court may its discretion, upon, the judgment
debtors/defendants in the said decree, rather resisting or obstructing the
warrant(s) officer or the bailiff, in his making successful executions of the
decree of prohibitory permanent injunction, thus on an application cast under
Section 151 CPC, becoming filed before it by the plaintiff/decree holder,
rather pass orders upon the jurisdictional SHO concerned, thus for the
providings of police assistances to the warrants officer or to the bailiff, so that
the above ensure the successful execution of the apposite decree.
11. In case the said directed police help is not provided to the
warrants Officer or the bailiff by the jurisdictional SHO concerned, despite
orders to the said effect, being passed by the learned Executing Court
concerned, thereupon, it is open to the learned Executing Court to make a
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065683-DB
CWP-18901-2019(O&M) (4)
reference to this Court for proceedings for contempt being drawn against the
errant jurisdictional SHO concerned. The learned Executing Court concerned,
may also before consigning the execution petition to the records, make a order
that the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction stands satisfied, but strictly
in terms of the judgment and decree (Annexure P-4).
12. Disposed of accordingly along with all pending application(s), if
any.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
(SUKHVINDER KAUR)
JUDGE
May 10, 2024
ANJAL
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
