Dismissed

Ramesh Kumar v. Nanag and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Mar 2013CR/1607/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to an execution order. The Court held that the lower courts correctly rejected the petitioner's objection of unlawful possession, noting his concealment of non-party status and a prior failed suit.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed as it was found to be devoid of merit, affirming the impugned orders of the executing court.

Ramesh Kumar Vs Nanag and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

C.R. No.1607 of 2013 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

C.R. No.1607 of 2013 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: 11.03.2013

Ramesh Kumar

....Petitioner

Versus

Nanag and others ....Respondents

¶10

BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶11

Present:Mr. Y.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

¶14

The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the Order dated 11.02.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, as well as, the Order dated 14.01.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dadri, vide which, the objections filed by the petitioner in execution petition have been dismissed.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned Orders only on the ground that the petitioner was in possession of the property since long and he was not a party to the suit. The possession of the petitioner cannot be disturbed and without considering this fact that he was in possession, the objections have been dismissed.

¶16

I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the impugned Orders.

¶17

Admittedly, the petitioner was not a party to the suit and father of the petitioner was party. The suit was decreed against the father of the

¶18

C.R. No.1607 of 2013 (O&M)

¶19

¶20

petitioner and the appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, the execution petition was filed. The petitioner has also filed a Civil Suit which was dismissed.

¶21

It has specifically been mentioned in the impugned order that the petitioner was not having any right over the property. The order passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani is very clear, wherein, it has been mentioned that the petitioner is neither the owner nor in lawful possession of the suit property and this fact has been concealed at the time of filing written statement as nowhere, it has been mentioned that the present petitioner was a party. During pendency of the suit as well as appeal, no application for impleadment was moved. The findings recorded by the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani are reproduced as under :-

¶22

“5. Way back in the year 1987, a civil suit had been filed by the decree-holders against JDs/respondents Madu Ram and others including father of the appellant which was decreed against which the father of the appellant Sardara went in appeal which had been dismissed. Therefore, instant execution pending before the executing Court is the outcome of that Civil Court decree. When the father of the appellant could not stop his ejectment from the suit property, appellant came into picture and claimed his possession thereon by concealing the fact that he had also tried his luck by way of independent civil suit in the year 1997 which was dismissed against him and appeal filed by him was also dismissed. When it was declared in his own suit that he was not owner in possession over the suit property, what remains else. Therefore, the contention of his counsel that without framing the issues and calling the parties, the executing Court is going to execute the decree of the Civil Court seems to be illogical objection.

¶23

C.R. No.1607 of 2013 (O&M)

¶24

¶25

The appellant has miserably failed to prove his lawful possession over the suit property. Therefore, the learned Executing Court has rightly dismissed his objections which might have been filed by him in order to prolong the proceedings on one pretext or the other by way of showing his little respect to the Court orders. Therefore, I find the submissions of counsel for the appellant devoid of merits. Accordingly, I reject the same.

¶26

Resultantly, appeal in hand is meritless. Consequently, impugned order is not liable to be upset. Hence, it is affirmed. Resultantly, appeal in hand stands dismissed with costs throughout. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Trial Court report along with copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith.”

¶27

There is no merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and the petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.

¶28

11.03.2013 gurpreet

¶29

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

Ramesh Kumar v. Nanag and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar v. Nanag 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

Jawahar Lal and Ors. Vs Amit Sekhar and Ors.

Amrik Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Ram Pal Vs Om Parkash and Ors.

S K Ghai Vs M/S Kapson Agencies Pvt. Ltd.

Rajbir Singh Sodhi Vs Fatehpal Singh

(O&M) Land Acquisition Collector & Anothers Vs Bhuru @ Bhawar Singh & Anothers