Dismissed

Sant Ram v. Manoj Kumar

Himachal Pradesh HC16 May 2013CMPMO/140/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging an order in execution proceedings where the respondent sought possession of property. The High Court, observing that the execution agency had no difficulty in identifying the property despite the petitioner's objections, dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and the pending application were dismissed.

Sant Ram Vs Manoj Kumar — Execution and Attachment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CMPMO No. 140 of 2013

¶3

Date of decision: 16.5.2013

¶4

Sant Ram …Petitioner Versus Manoj Kumar ..Respondent.

¶5

Coram

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?¹ No

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate. For the Respondents :

¶8

Kuldip Singh , Judge ( Oral )

¶9

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 9.4.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirmaur District at Nahan in Execution Petition No. 15/10 of 2012.

¶10

2. The civil suit No. 34/1 of 2000 filed by the respondent was decreed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan on 25.8.2001 and a decree for possession of the suit property viz., two rooms and one kitchen as shown in site plan Ex.PB at point mark ‘A’ comprised in Khasra No. 151 to 154 situate at Muhal Amarpur, Nahan was passed in favour of the respondent. The site plan Ex.PB was made part of the decree.

¶11

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?

¶12

¶13

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the decree passed by the trial Court was upheld right upto the Apex Court. Thereafter the decree holder filed execution petition. The petitioner filed objections in the execution petition that decree is not executable on the ground that Khasra Nos. 151 to 154 are surrounded by the other khasra numbers and the house which is in possession of the respondent is not solely comprised in Khasra Nos. 151 to 154, on the contrary, most of the house is over Khasra Nos. 148, 149, 150 and 155. The identification of the suit land was already considered by the trial Court at the time of decreeing the suit, Ex.PB site plan was made part of the decree. In any case, the possession will be delivered to the respondent-D.H. in terms of the decree. There is nothing that the executing agency has shown any difficulty in identification of the property. There is no merit in the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed, so also the pending application.

¶14

May 16, 2013 ( Kuldip Singh ), (GR) Judge.

Sant Ram v. Manoj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sant Ram v. Manoj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basant Singh Rathaur Vs Hp Housing Urban Dev .Authority

Sona Vs Ms Vardhman Polytex

Nand Lal Vs Meena

Shariff Mohd. Vs Nikka Ram

G.S.Sangroli Vs Roshan Lal Tomar

Sumna Devi Vs Dhanu