This court dismissed a civil revision challenging the dismissal of an execution application seeking violation of a permanent injunction decree, holding there was no independent evidence to prove interference with possession.
Application for violation of decree under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC 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.
Civil Revision No. 1925 of 2012 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 1925 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.5.2012
Om Parkash and another
.. Petitioner
v.
Rameshwar and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. V. D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 11.1.2012, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC, was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that decree of permanent injunction was passed in favour of the petitioners on 3.1.2004. As the respondents started interfering into the possession of the petitioners, the application in question was filed. The same has been wrongly dismissed by the court below. In fact, a prayer was also made for police help for removal of the koop (heap of straw) from the land of the petitioners.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. A specific finding has been recorded by the court below to the effect that the koop, as alleged by the petitioners, is not existing on the land owned by the decree holders. They have also failed to prove that the respondents had, in any manner, interfered with the possession of land, for which they were restrained from, by tying their buffaloes. It was only the affidavit of one of the petitioners, which was filed in support thereof. There is no independent corroborative evidence led
Civil Revision No. 1925 of 2012 [2]
in support of the case regarding violation of the decree passed in favour of the petitioners.
In view of my aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge
10.5.2012 mk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the application for violation of the decree under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC was rightly dismissed due to lack of independent evidence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Om Parkash and another
Rameshwar and others
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
