Dismissed

Hanif Khan and Anr. v. Ali Mohammad Alias Alim

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Apr 2013CR/1283/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision under Article 227 challenged an executing court order directing petitioners to restore suit property possession and undergo civil imprisonment for disobeying a decree. The High Court dismissed the revision, upholding the lower court's findings on post-decree construction. It also held the warrant of arrest valid as the prior order was unchallenged.

What did the court decide?

The revision was dismissed; the order directing restoration of possession and civil imprisonment stands, and the warrant of arrest was issued.

Hanif Khan and Anr. Vs Ali Mohammad Alias… — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CR 1283 of 2013 Date of Decision : April 04, 2013

¶3

Hanif Khan and another

....Petitioners

Versus

Ali Mohammad @ Alim

.....Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

¶9

Present : Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

T.P.S. MANN, J.

¶11

The petitioners-judgment debtors have filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for challenging the order passed by the executing Court on 15.9.2011 vide which the application filed by the respondentdecree holder under Order XXI Rule 32 read with Section 151 CPC was allowed and the petitioners directed to restore the possession of the suit property. Subsequent order passed by the executing Court on 10.9.2012 issuing warrants of arrest against the petitioners has also been challenged by them.

¶12

While opposing the application under Order XXI Rule

¶13

CR 1283 of 2013

¶14

-2-

¶15

32 read with Section 151 CPC, the petitioners had alleged that they were in possession of the suit property for the last more than 21 years and much before the passing of the judgment and decree dated 24.4.2008 whereby they were directed not to interfere in the possession of the decree holder, they had raised construction over the suit property and, therefore, there was no question of their disobeying the directions issued by the Court. However, none of them stepped into the witness box to corroborate their stand. On the other hand, DHW2 Yusuf and DHW3 Jan Mohammad were not even suggested that no construction was raised after passing of the decree in question. Aforementioned DHW2 Yusuf and DHW3 Jan Mohammad fully corroborated the testimony of DHW1 Ali Mohammad, who specifically averred that the judgment debtors had raised construction over the suit property after the passing of the judgment and decree on 24.4.2008. Under these circumstances, the executing Court vide impugned order dated 15.9.2011 was perfectly justified in directing the judgment debtors to restore the possession of the suit property and, further, as the judgment debtors had disobeyed the judgment and decree passed by the Court, they were required to undergo civil imprisonment.

¶16

While passing the impugned order dated 15.9.2011, the executing Court after directing the judgment debtors to undergo civil imprisonment, kept the order in abeyance till the

¶17

CR 1283 of 2013 -3-

¶18

expiry of period of filing of appeal/revision. When the judgment debtors did not file any appeal/revision against the aforementioned order, the decree holder vide application dated 10.9.2012 (Annexure P-2) requested the Court to issue warrants of arrest against them to be executed through the Station House Officer. Pursuant thereto, the executing Court supplied copy of the application to the counsel for the judgment debtors, who stated that he did not intend to file any reply to the same. Accordingly, the executing Court directed the issuance of warrants of arrest against the judgment debtors for undergoing civil imprisonment for two months earlier imposed upon them vide order dated 15.9.2011. Admittedly, the order dated 15.9.2011 has not been challenged by the judgment debtors by filing an appeal or revision. Therefore, they are required to undergo civil imprisonment in terms of the said order.

¶19

There is no merit in the revision, which is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶20

April 04, 2013 ajay-I

¶21

( T.P.S. MANN) JUDGE

Hanif Khan and Anr. v. Ali Mohammad Alias Alim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanif Khan and Anr. v. Ali Mohammad Alias Alim

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

Devi Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Amarjit Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Karanjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Satnam Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sangeeta and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.