This Court dismissed a revision petition challenging orders declining objections to the execution of a possession decree. The Court upheld that a second execution application is permissible and that a judgment debtor cannot block possession merely by denying unauthorized occupancy.
The petition challenging the execution orders was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R. No. 5998 of 2010
- 1- ****
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 5998 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 17.09.2010
Tansukh
.......... Petitioner
Versus
Tara Chand
...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present : Mr. Satbir Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.
VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the orders dated 17.3.2010 (Annexure P-1) and 29.5.2010 (Annexure P-2), passed by the learned executing Court, vide which objections filed by the petitioner to the execution of the decree stands declined.
The petitioner filed objections to the execution of the decree on two grounds.
First ground was, that earlier execution application filed by the decree-holder was dismissed in default and the restoration application also dismissed. The second execution application for execution of the decree was not competent.
The second objection raised was, that the execution of the decree was, that the petitioner was not in unauthorized occupation of the property in dispute, therefore, he could not be
C.R. No. 5998 of 2010
- 2- ****
evicted in execution of the decree.
The learned executing Court rejected the objections by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Yash Pal Sharma Vs. Ajit Singh & Others 2004(1)HRR 413 , wherein it has been held that the second execution application on dismissal of the previous application was not barred.
In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Yash Pal Sharma Vs. Ajit Singh & Others (Supra) the first objection was rightly dismissed. The learned executing Court rightly dismissed the second objection also, as there was a decree for possession in favour of the decree-holder the petitioner could not object to the execution merely by claiming, that he was not in unauthorized possession, as judgment debtor was bound by the decree.
The order impugned being in consonance of law, does not call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
No merit.
Dismissed.
17.09.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a second execution application is barred after dismissal of a previous one in default.
Whether a judgment debtor can object to possession execution by claiming unauthorized occupation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Yash Pal Sharma Vs. Ajit Singh & OthersApplied¶18
_Yash Pal Sharma Vs. Ajit Singh & Others 2004(1)HRR 413_
Tansukh
Tara Chand
Vinod K. Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
