Allowed

Punnu Ram v. Jaimal Ram & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Sept 2011CR/5541/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

ITC Revised the order of the Additional Civil Judge, Abohar, which granted police assistance for possession execution without a specific application or evidence of resistance, finding it legally unjustified under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 06.08.2011 granting police help is set aside. The executing court is directed to proceed with the execution application in accordance with law.

Punnu Ram Vs Jaimal Ram & Ors. — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 5541 of 2011 --1--

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Revision No. 5541 of 2011 Date of decision. 19.09.2011

Punnu Ram

.... Petitioner

Versus

Jaimal Ram and another

¶8

...... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶10

Present: Mr.Mandeep K. Sajjan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

Vijender Singh Malik, J.

¶13

Punnu Ram, petitioner has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 06.08.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Abohar whereby police help for execution of warrant of possession has been ordered without their being any application for the same from the decree holder.

¶14

The petitioner has placed on record copy of order dated 3.8.2011, vide which the original execution application, adjourned sine-die vide order dated 5.10.2001 was taken on board and the court decided to proceed with the execution of the decree. It was done so consequent upon dismissal of a regular second appeal by this court.

¶15

Civil Revision No. 5541 of 2011 --2--

¶16

Allowing the application for proceeding further with the execution application, learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Abohar adjourned the case to 6.8.2011 for filing an application seeking police help.

¶17

Despite making this order on 03.08.2011, calling upon the decree holder to file application seeking police help, learned executing court passed the impugned order dated 6.8.2011, vide which the police help was ordered to be provided for execution of warrant of possession in favour of the decree holder without the decree holder making any application containing such prayer.

¶18

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the judgment debtor has brought this revision petition.

¶19

I have heard Mr.Mandeep K. Sajjan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and have gone through the record.

¶20

After dismissal of the regular second appeal, the execution file was taken up on 3.8.2011. No warrant of possession had been issued in execution of the decree passed in favour of the decree holder so far and, therefore, there was no question of any resistance or obstruction caused by the judgment debtor. Without their being any resistance, the court called upon the decree holder to file application for seeking police help for execution of warrant of possession. On the next date, no application for police help was filed by the decree holder and learned executing court hastily granted police help to the decree holder for execution of warrant of possession.

¶21

Civil Revision No. 5541 of 2011 --3--

¶22

In the absence of any resistance or obstruction as is required under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be there for seeking police help and any application seeking police help followed by inquiry envisaged by Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, learned executing court has made order providing police help to the decree holder for execution of the warrant of possession, which cannot be held justified in law.

¶23

In view of the above, I find that the impugned order suffers from patent illegality and accepting the revision petition, the order dated 06.08.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Abohar, is set aside. Learned executing court is directed to proceed with the execution application in accordance with law.

¶24

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶25

19.09.2011 dinesh

Punnu Ram v. Jaimal Ram & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punnu Ram v. Jaimal Ram & 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

Ruby Mushroom & Canning (P) Ltd. and Ors. Vs Canara Bank

Surjit Kaur and Ors. Vs Gurdev Kaur and Ors.

Dharam Pal Vs Rahul and Ors.

M/S S.S. Bindra Engg. Works and Anr. Vs Satish Kumar and Ors.

Natinder Kumar Vs Sukhwant Kaur

Rajinder Bains & Ors. Vs Sukhbir Singh and Ors.