Dismissed
Rachpal Singh v. Harbans Singh etc.
Punjab & Haryana HCCR/7945/2011
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
No.7945 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT…
What the court decided
AI extract
No.7945 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT…
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.7945 of 2011 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.7945 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : January 12, 2012
Rachhpal Singh
....Petitioner
versus
Harbans Singh and another
....Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Mr. JS Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioner
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
CM No. 845.CII of 2012
The application is allowed and Annexure P/7 is taken on record subject to all just exceptions.
CM No. 30642.CII of 2011
Allowed as prayed for.
CM No. 30643.CII of 2011
The application is allowed and Annexures P/1 to P/6 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.
Civil Revision No.7945 of 2011 (O&M)
-2-
CR No. 7945 of 2011
Rachhpal Singh legal representative of Mohinder Singh judgment debtor no. 1 since deceased has filed this revision petition assailing order dated 5.10.2011 passed by executing court i.e. learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana thereby granting police help to decree holder Mal Singh since deceased and represented by Harbans Singh respondent no. 1 for execution of the decree for removal of encroachment from the street.
Suit filed by Mal Singh against Mohinder Singh (predecessor of the petitioner) and Kulwant Singh proforma respondent no. 2 was decreed vide decree dated 21.3.1995 Annexure P/7. Decree holder filed execution petition seeking removal of encroachment from the disputed street made by judgment debtors and also seeking their detention in civil prison. Local Commissioner was appointed by the executing court for removal of encroachment. The Local Commissioner reported obstruction and misbehaviour by judgment debtors and sought police aid. Executing court after recording evidence regarding requirement of police aid passed impugned order Annexure P/6 dated 5.10.2011. granting police aid for removal of the encroachment from the street but declined the prayer of decree holder for detention of judgment debtors in civil prison. Feeling aggrieved, LR of judgment debtor no. 1 has filed the instant revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
Civil Revision No.7945 of 2011 (O&M)
-3-
case file.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that the judgment debtors have not made any encroachment on the street. Reference was made to demarcation report Annexure P/2. Counsel for the petitioner also contended that judgment debtors have moved application in executing court for getting demarcation but no order has been passed thereon.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions but find the same to be meritless. No such contention was raised before the executing court nor the same has been dealt with. On the contrary, by impugned order of the executing court, only police aid has been provided for removal of encroachment from the street.
As regards demarcation report Annexure P/2, the same was obtained by judgment debtors from Revenue Officer without associating the decree holder and without intervention of the executing court. Consequently, the said demarcation carries no weight.
There is not even an averment in the instant revision petition that judgment debtors had moved any application in the executing court seeking demarcation. Consequently, contention of counsel for the petitioner that any such application had been moved and no order was passed thereon by the executing court cannot be accepted.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. Impugned order of the executing court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by
Civil Revision No.7945 of 2011 (O&M)
-4-
this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine.
( L.N. Mittal ) January 12, 2012 Judge 'dalbir'
Rachhpal Singh
Harbans Singh
L.N. Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court