Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sultanram vs Lrs. Of Late Sh. Khyaliram ... on 20 September, 2024
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2024:RJ-JD:39106]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14884/2024
1. Sultanram S/o Late Kashi Ram, Aged About 73 Years,
Pakka Saharana, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.
2. Mahavir S/o Late Kashi Ram, Aged About 68 Years, Pakka
Saharana, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.
3. Indraj S/o Late Kashi Ram, Aged About 68 Years, Pakka
Saharana, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
Lrs. Of Late Sh. Khyaliram, Through-
1. Smt. Gomti Devi W/o Late Khayaliram, Ward No.13,
Pakka Saharana, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
2. Satyanarayan S/o Late Khayaliram, Ward No.13, Pakka
Saharana, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
3. Indraj S/o Late Khayaliram, Ward No.6, Pakka Saharana,
Tehsil And District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
4. Lila Devi D/o Late Khayaliram W/o Ashok Kumar, Bhagsar,
District Firozpur (Punjab).
5. Smt. Rukmani D/o Late Khayaliram W/o Sharwan Kumar,
Sardarpura Jiwan, Tehsil Sadulshahar, District
Sriganganagar (Raj.).
6. Smt. Kailash D/o Late Khayaliram W/o Vinod Godara,
Elnabad, Tehsil Elnabad, District Sirsa (Haryana).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh Khosa
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
20/09/2024
1. The present writ petition has been preferred against the
order dated 25.07.2024 whereby the learned Executing Court
proceeded on to issue recovery warrant to the petitioners.
[2024:RJ-JD:39106] (2 of 3) [CW-14884/2024]
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
execution proceedings have been initiated for the alleged
expenses incurred by the decree holder in execution of the decree
dated 24.04.2009 (Annexure-P/1) whereas there was no direction
to the judgment-debtor for reconstruction of the wall. Therefore,
no cost qua the reconstruction of the wall can be recovered from
the judgment-debtor.
3. Heard the counsel.
4. A perusal of the judgment dated 24.04.2009 makes it clear
that there was a specific direction as under:
"1- izfroknhx.k okn i= dh pj.k la[;k 4 esa of.kZr oknh ds LokfeRo
dh Hkwfe ds iwoZ fn"kk esa mRrj dh vksj lk<s pkj QqV o nf{k.k fn"kk esa
10 QqV c<+dj 70 QqV yach Hkwfe esa fd;s x;s uktk;t o voS/k dCtk o
rkfejkr dks layXuutjh uD"kk izn"kZ 3 esa gjs o yky jax ls n"kkZ;s x;s]
dks vius Lo;a ds [kpsZ ls vkt fu.kZ; ls rhu ekg ds Hkhrj gVk ysos o
bl Hkwfe dk dCtk rqjUr oknh dks nsdj iwoZor iwohZ fnokj izn"kZ 3 esa
okbZ ls tsM cuk ysosA rFkk ;g Hkh "kk"or O;kns"k izfroknhx.k@
izR;FkhZx.k ds fo:) ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd okn i= dh pj.k la- 4 esa
of.kZr oknh ds iV~Vs"kqnk Hkw[k.Mksa esa ;g dCtk&fuekZ.k gVkus ds ckn
fdlh rjg dk dksbZ oknh ds vkf/kiR;] miHkksx o vf/kdkj esa gLr{ksi
ugha djs vkSj u gh fdlh rjg dk dksbZ dCtk djsA oknh vihy O;;
rFkk esgurkuk odhy Hkh izkIr djus dk vf/dkjh gksxkA rn~uqlkj vihy
esa fu.kZ; vuqlkj fMØh ipkZ ewfrZo gksA"
5. Meaning thereby, the judgment-debtor was not only under
an obligation to demolish the existing encroachment but was also
under an obligation to construct the new wall. Evidently, the same
having not been done by the judgment-debtor, the decree holder
got the same done at his cost.
6. In view of the above, the decree holder is definitely entitled
to recover the amount qua the costs/expenses incurred in the
[2024:RJ-JD:39106] (3 of 3) [CW-14884/2024]
execution of the decree. No interference in the order impugned is
made out and the writ petition is hence, dismissed.
7. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
453-KashishS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
