Dismissed

Vidhya Devi v. Raj Pal and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Jan 2010CR/5835/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition assailing dismissal of objections filed in an execution petition for permanent injunction was dismissed. The Court held objections under CPC Order 21 Rules 97 to 103 are not maintainable as no delivery of possession was involved and the land was outside the decree.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; petitioner free to seek remedy for encroachment on other land.

Vidhya Devi Vs Raj Pal and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

C. R. No. 5835 of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : C. R. No. 5835 of 2009

¶5

Date of Decision : January 18, 2010

¶6

Vidhya Devi .... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Raj Pal and others .... Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

¶10

¶11

Present : Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 3.

¶13

¶14

L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

¶15

Objector Vidhya Devi has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 22.08.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by Executing Court i.e. learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, whereby objections filed by the petitioner herein, in execution petition filed by respondents no.1 to 3/decree holders against respondents no.4 to 20/judgment debtors, have been dismissed.

¶16

Suit filed by respondents no.1 to 3 against respondents no.4 to 20 (including their predecessors) was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 12.05.2006 (Annexure P-2),whereby the judgment debtors were restrained from interfering in peaceful possession of the decree holders and from dispossessing them illegally and forcibly from the suit land.

¶17

C. R. No. 5835 of 2009

¶18

¶19

Respondents no.1 to 3 filed execution petition against respondents no.4 to 20 for execution of the said decree. In the execution petition, the petitioner herein filed objections/application (Annexure P-1) under Order 21 Rules 97 to 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC) . The petitioner alleged that the land in dispute is owned and possessed by the petitioner and she had previously filed a suit for permanent injunction against the present decree holders, who made statement therein that they would not disturb the peaceful possession of the decree holder. However, now in the execution petition, the present decree holders, without getting demarcation, want to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the previous suit, which was filed by the petitioner herein, did not relate to the suit land, but related to her other land adjoining the suit land involved in the present execution petition. In view thereof, objections filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rules 97 to 103 CPC are not maintainable. The execution petition pertains to the suit land involved in decree (Annexure P-2), with which the petitioner has no concern. If the decree holders intend to encroach upon the land of the petitioner, the petitioner may have a remedy according to law, but the petitioner has no right to file objections in the instant execution petition.

¶22

In the aforesaid context, it may be noticed that the objections filed by the petitioner are under Order 21 Rules 97 to 103 CPC. However, the said provisions relate to filing of objections by a third party, when possession is being delivered to decree-holder or auction purchaser. In the instant case, decree for permanent injunction is being executed and delivery of possession is not to be effected. The Executing Court has, therefore, rightly observed that objections under Order 21 Rules 97 to 103 CPC are not maintainable.

¶23

C. R. No. 5835 of 2009

¶24

¶25

In view of the aforesaid, I find no illegality in the impugned order of the Executing Court. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed being without merit. However, it is expressly made clear that neither the Executing Court nor this Court has touched upon the merits of the claim of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail of her remedy in accordance with law.

¶26

January 18, 2010

¶27

monika

¶28

( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE

Vidhya Devi v. Raj Pal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidhya Devi v. Raj Pal 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

Daljit Singh Vs Shashi Kumar and Ors.

M/S Garg Construction Co. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

P S I D C Ltd. Vs M/S Vee Kay Oils P Ltd. and Ors.

Patram Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

M/S Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ram Pal and Ors.

State of Punjab and Ors. Vs M/S S.S. Construction