Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sajjan Singh vs Kamlesh And Others on 7 May, 2024

Author: Anil Kshetarpal

Bench: Anil Kshetarpal

                                   Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063849




ESA-27-2024(O&M)



142         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

                                           ESA-27-2024(O&M)
                                           Date of decision : 07.05.2024

Sajjan Singh                                                 ...Appellant

                                           Vs.

Smt. Kamlesh and others                                      ...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:    Mr. Varun Baanth, Advocate for
            Mr. Ravinder Hooda, Advocate
            for the appellant.
                         ***

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (Oral)

1. This execution second appeal has been filed by the third party

objector, who is the nephew of the Judgment Debtor. Sh. Vazir Singh filed a

suit for declaration with a consequential relief for permanent injunction. The

defendants filed the counter-claim. After the parties were allowed to lead

evidence, the suit filed by Sh. Vazir Singh was dismissed, whereas, the

counter-claim filed by the decree holder i.e. defendants was allowed on

22.09.2017. The first appeal filed by Sh. Vazir Singh was dismissed on

21.11.2018. In order to implement the decree, the decree-holders filed an

execution petition, in which, the objections were filed by the petitioner. Both

the Courts below have dismissed the objection petition.

2. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that it was not

appropriate for the Executing Court to dismiss the objection petition filed by

the third party without culling out the issues and permitting the petitioner to

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063849

ESA-27-2024(O&M)

lead evidence. He further submits that the petitioner is in possession since

1880.

3. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner.

4. In 'Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Others',

(2021) 6 SCC 418, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is not

mandatory to settle issues unless the objector establishes a very good prima

facie case. The expression used by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is 'rare' and 'in

exceptional cases'.

5. As regards the second submission, it shall be noticed that the

petitioner has not produced any material to prove that he has any independent

right apart from his uncle, who has already suffered decree, not only from the

trial Court but also from the First Appellate Court.

6. Hence, no ground to interfere is made out.

7. Dismissed.

8. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.




                                                    (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
07.05.2024                                               JUDGE
neeraj
               Whether speaking/reasoned :             Yes         No
               Whether Reportable :                    Yes         No




                                    2 of 2