Dismissed

Ram Singh v. Bhagwan Dass and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Mar 2012CR/1884/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a civil revision petition challenging orders dismissing an appeal against a decree execution. The Court found no illegality as defendants took possession in due course of law, affirming lower courts. No claim of merit was established.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed with leave to consent that observations were not on merits.

Ram Singh Vs Bhagwan Dass and Ors. — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No.1884 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No.1884 of 2012 Date of decision 26.03.2012.

¶5

Ram Singh

¶6

...... Petitioner.

¶7

versus

¶8

Bhagwan Dass and others

¶9

.. .... Respondent.

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI

¶11

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

Present : Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶15

K.C.PURI. J.

¶16

Challenge in this revision petition is the order dated 30.01.2012 passed by Shri Ravi Kumar Sondhi, Additional District Judge, Karnal vide which the appeal preferred by the present petitioner/plaintiff against the order dated 24.9.2009 passed by Shri Hem Raj Verma, learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal was dismissed.

¶17

Briefly stated that the present plaintiff-revisionist filed suit for permanent injunction alleging that he is proprietor of the village and is in cultivating possession of the suit land. A consent decree has been fraudulently obtained by the respondents in Civil Appeal No.13/9 and 14/9 of 1995 and they are getting possession by executing that said fraudulent decree.

¶18

Civil Revision No.1884 of 2012

¶19

¶20

The suit was resisted by the defendants/respondents and it is pleaded that they are taking the possession in due course of law by execution of the decree.

¶21

The plaintiff along with the suit filed an application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – the CPC) and that application was dismissed vide order dated 24.4.2009 observing that possession has been taken in due course of law and that does not amount to illegal injury. That order was challenged in the appeal and the appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 30.1.2012 and the findings of the trial Court were affirmed. The plaintiff/petitioner has preferred the present revision challenging both the orders 24.4.2009 and order dated 30.1.2012, mentioned above.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the case file.

¶23

Both the courts below have observed that defendants are taking possession in due course of decree and there is no illegal injury. Father of the plaintiff was stated to be a party in the earlier litigation and the execution of decree is being sought by the defendants. So in these circumstances, I see no illegality in the orders passed by both the Courts below and no case for interference in the revision petition is made out.

¶24

Consequently, the revision petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.

¶25

However, it is made clear that any observations made by this Court or by the First Appellate Court shall not construe to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶26

Civil Revision No.1884 of 2012

¶27

¶28

A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.

¶29

( K.C.PURI )

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

March 26 , 2012 sv

Ram Singh v. Bhagwan Dass and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Singh v. Bhagwan Dass 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

Balwinder Singh and Ors. Vs Harjit Kaur and Ors.

(O&M) Ram Chander Vs Bhoop Singh etc.

Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs Kanhiya Lal Yadav

Inder Singh Vs Gram Panchayat of Vill Karman

Sukhmander Singh Vs Gurdit Singh and Ors.

Baldev Singh and Ors. Vs Jit Singh and Ors.