Allowed

Jagdish Lal and Ors. v. Hari Inder Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Aug 2009CR/3128/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition filed under Article 226 regarding an interim order dismissing amendment of an objection petition in execution proceedings was allowed after respondents conceded, and the impugned order was set aside.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 4.5.2006 set aside; petitioners permitted to amend objection petition; Executing Court to dispose within six months.

Jagdish Lal and Ors. Vs Hari Inder Singh… — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Revision No. 3128 of 2006 Date of Decision : August 3, 2009

¶3

Jagdish Lal Chug and another

¶4

....Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

Hari Inder Singh Bhagat and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

¶9

Present : Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr. K.S.Rekhi, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 6.

¶11

T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)

¶12

Suit for possession filed by respondents No.1 to 6 against respondent No.7 was decreed by the trial Court on 2.4.1992. The execution proceedings started in the year 1996. During their pendency, the present petitioners filed an objection petition under Order XXI Rule 97 read with Order XXI Rule 58 and Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Lateron, the petitioners filed an application for amendment of their objection petition, but it was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 4.5.2006, which order has been impugned in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶13

Upon notice, defendants No.1 to 6, who were the Decree holders

¶14

C.R. No. 3128 of 2006 -2-

¶15

stand served and represented.

¶16

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court vide order dated 15.1.2007 admitted the revision and stayed further proceedings before the Executing Court. Lateron, respondents No.1 to 6/Decree holders filed C.M. No. 2629-CII of 2007 for dismissal of the revision petition in view of the fact that the revision petition was against an interim order dated 4.5.2006 passed by the Executing Court while declining amendment of the objection petition. The same came up for hearing on 6.3.2007 when learned counsel representing respondents No.1 to 6 stated that his clients had no objection if the amendment sought by the petitioners was allowed. Notice of the application was issued and on September 17, 2007, an order was passed for final hearing of the revision petition.

¶17

The contesting respondents have already conceded to the allowing of the revision by permitting the petitioners to amend their objection petition, obviously for the reason that they have not been able to reap the fruits of the decree, which they had obtained in the year 1992 and thought it better to request the High Court for allowing the revision so that the matter may be decided by the Executing Court at the earliest.

¶18

Once the contesting respondents have conceded to the allowing of the revision, it would be just and proper to grant relief to the objectors/ petitioners.

¶19

C.R. No. 3128 of 2006 -3-

¶20

Without commenting on the merits of the stand taken by the petitioners for amendment of the objection petition, the present revision is accepted, impugned order is set-aside and the petitioners are permitted to amend their objection petition.

¶21

Parties through their counsel shall appear before the Executing Court on 26.8.2009.

¶22

The objection petition shall be taken on record by the Executing Court and the said Court shall ensure its disposal within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties.

¶23

August 3, 2009 ajay-1

¶24

( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE

Jagdish Lal and Ors. v. Hari Inder Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Lal and Ors. v. Hari Inder Singh and Ors.

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

Ashok Kumar Vs Rakesh Kumar and Ors.

Ranjit Singh Vs Ajit Singh

M/S Sadhu Ram Roshan Lal and Anr. Vs Ram Ji Dass and Anr.

State of Pb. Vs Bhupinder Singh

Banarsi Dass Vs Krishn Lal and Ors.

Savitri and Ors. Vs Gram Panchayat and Ors.