Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukha Singh vs Sucha Singh And Another on 30 January, 2025
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014085
CR-403-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
CR-403-2025
Date of decision : 30.01.2025
Sukha Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
Sucha Singh and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr.Vijay Rana, Advocate
for the petitioner.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 08.10.2024
(Annexure P-7) passed by the Executing Court, Jalandhar, District
Jalandhar, vide which the objections filed by the present petitioner has been
dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the
present case, the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2015 with respect to
possession and recovery of Rs.1000/- per month from the date of filing of
the suit till the date of delivery of possession was passed in favour of
respondents-plaintiffs and thereafter, they had filed an execution
application. The first execution application was filed and in the said
execution application vide order dated 19.08.2023, the decree holder had
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014085
stated that he had received the possession of the demised premises and
thereafter, withdrew the execution application as being fully satisfied. It is
submitted that however, prior to 19.08.2023 i.e., on 16.08.2023 another
execution was filed for recovery of the amount without disclosing the
factum with respect to earlier execution application in spite of there being a
specific column for the same. It is submitted that the petitioner had
submitted objections to the said second execution application but the same
had been illegally dismissed by the Executing Court. It is argued that once
the first execution application was withdrawn after being fully satisfied, the
second execution application was not maintainable and thus, the objections
filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor should have been allowed and the
impugned order deserves to be set aside. In support of his arguments,
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated
05.06.2020 of the Madras High Court in the case of "M.S. Jayaprakash
and another vs. G.Sundaram (died) through his legal representative"
C.R.P.(NPD) no.1705 of 2013.
3. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
has perused the paper book and finds that the impugned order has been
passed in accordance with law and the present petition being meritless
deserves to be dismissed for the reasons recorded hereinafter.
4. It is not in dispute that the respondent had filed a suit for
possession of shop in question and also for recovery of Rs.33,000/- on
account of arrears of rent in respect of shop in question along with upto date
interest @ 12% per annum from 01.01.2011 till its actual realization. In the
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014085
said suit, the present petitioner was the defendant and after full contest, the
trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 03.11.2015 granted following
relief to the respondents:-
"RELIEF
23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the suit of the
plaintiffs is partly decreed and the plaintiffs are held entitled
to possession and are further held entitled to recovery of
Rs.1000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit till the
date of delivery of possession of the suit property. The
plaintiffs shall be further entitled to 6% per annum future
interest but only from the date of judgment till the date of
payment over the entire amount held to be due. Decree sheet
be prepared and file be consigned to the record room after due
compliance.
Pronounced in open Court
Dt:03.11.2015 (Dr. Mandeep Mittal) PCS
Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.)-(NRI cases),
Jalandhar.
A perusal of the above would show that in the said suit, the
plaintiffs-respondents were held entitled to possession and also for recovery
of Rs.1000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit till the date of
delivery of possession of the suit property and further entitled to 6% per
annum future interest.
5. In the execution application dated 31.05.2023 (Annexure P-4),
it was stated that the appeal filed against the said judgment was dismissed
by the Ist Appellate Court on 23.03.2017 and even the appeal before the
High Court was dismissed vide order dated 31.01.2020. Although the said
judgments have not been annexed with the present petition but the fact that
the judgment of the trial Court has been upheld upto the High Court has not
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014085
been disputed before this Court. Thus, as per final adjudication, the
respondents-plaintiffs were entitled to possession as well as recovery of
Rs.1000/- per month from the date of filing of suit till delivery of
possession. It is not in dispute that no money has been paid by the petitioner
to the plaintiffs in pursuance of the said decree and the decree to the extent
of recovery of money is still unsatisfied. Only the possession of the property
has been handed over to the decree holder that too after he had filed
execution and had pursued his rights till the year 2023. The objections filed
by the petitioner to the second execution had been dismissed by the
Executing Court vide order dated 08.10.2024 after observing that the claim
of the decree holder was satisfied only qua possession and there was no
statement of the decree holder with respect to recovery of the amount as
awarded by the trial Court. The judgment of the trial Court has attained
finality and thus, the decree holder could not be debarred from claiming the
recovery of amount granted in his favour in the judgment and decree dated
03.11.2015 and that it is well settled law that the Executing Court cannot
go beyond the decree, moreso, when there is no stay order operating in
favour of the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2015.
Accordingly warrants of attachment were issued on filing of list of the
property of the judgment debtor. No further order after 08.10.2024 to show
as to what transpired subsequent to the said order has been annexed along
with the present petition.
6. It is a matter of settled law that it is the duty of the Executing
Court to execute the judgment and decree in accordance with the relief
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014085
granted / decree passed. In the present case, the decree passed in favour of
the respondents-plaintiffs is both for possession and for recovery of money.
Admittedly, the petitioner has not paid the decretal money which he has
been held liable to pay. Thus, in the said circumstances, it cannot be said
that the impugned order dated 08.10.2024 which has been passed, is illegal,
calling for any interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By virtue of the impugned
order, the Executing Court has done justice to the respondents-plaintiffs by
permitting them to pursue their right to execute the judgment and decree
and the same does not call for any interference.
7. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in
the case of M.S. Jayaprakash and another (supra) in support of his
arguments does not further the case of the petitioner in any manner. In the
said case, the decree holder had sought eviction of the property and the said
relief was granted to the decree holder vide decree dated 25.11.2011. An
execution petition was filed and delivery of property was ordered and the
execution petition was thereafter terminated / closed. It is thereafter that the
decree holder had filed an application to re-open the execution proceedings
on the ground that the Bailiff, who had gone to execute the warrants, had
colluded with the judgment debtor and had not properly taken into
consideration the schedule of the property and had taken possession of 200
sq. ft. of property alone instead of 1240 sq. ft. The said application was
dismissed on the ground that since delivery had been duly recorded and the
execution petition had been terminated, the same could not be reopened.
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014085
The Madras High Court however, after observing that the extent of the
possession was disputed, considered it to be a fit case where the revisional
powers of the Court should be exercised under Section 115 of the Civil
Procedure Code and allowed the revision petition filed by the
landlord/decree holder therein and remitted the matter to the Rent
Controller, X-Small Causes Court, Chennai, to hold a preliminary enquiry
as to the extent of the land of which the possession had been given after
giving due opportunity to both the parties. The said judgment was in fact in
favour of the decree holder therein and thus, goes against the petitioner in
the present case, who is a judgment debtor. The abovesaid relief was
granted to the decree holder therein after noticing the objection raised on
behalf of the judgment debtor therein that the execution petition had been
duly executed in terms of the decretal order to the satisfaction of the decree
holder and report of the senior Bailiff was also filed and recorded in the
Court and hence it was not open to the decree holder to raise a plea that the
property had not been duly identified.
8. The facts of the present case are on a much higher footing in
favour of the decree holder than the facts of the above said case and yet the
Madras High Court had held the case in favour of the decree holder. In the
present case, there is no ambiguity, inasmuch as, two reliefs have been
specifically granted by virtue of the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2015
that being of possession and recovery of money and further there is no
dispute that recovery of money has not been effected, although in the case
before the Madras High Court there were disputed questions raised and the
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014085
petition of the decree holder was allowed to do complete justice to the
decree holder. Moreover, no law has been cited before this Court to show
that in such circumstances, as in the present case, the decree holder is
estopped from filing the second execution application for recovery of the
arrears of rent which have been granted to him vide judgment and decree
dated 03.11.2015. Interference by this Court in such a matter would in effect
result in non-execution of a part of the decree dated 03.11.2015 in spite of
the fact that the said decree has attained finality.
9. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the
present revision petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed and is
accordingly dismissed.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
January 30, 2025.
Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
