Dismissed
Jaswinder Singh v. Sahib Masih and Others
Punjab & Haryana HCCR/7246/2017
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
7246 of 2017 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF…
What the court decided
AI extract
7246 of 2017 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF…
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.
CR No. 7246 of 2017 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No. 101
Case No. : CR No. 7246 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision : November 28, 2018
Jaswinder Singh .... Petitioner
vs.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL.
Present : Mr. Raman Goklaney, Advocate for the petitioner.
DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) :
The present petition is directed against the orders dated 07.01.2017 and 18.07.2017 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur (for short – the Executing Court), through which the petitioner/judgment-debtor's objections have been dismissed.
The facts, in brief, which are required to be noticed for adjudicating upon the present petition are that respondent no. 1 filed a suit seeking therein possession of land detailed and described in the head note of the plaint (for short – the suit property). In such suit, the petitioner, who was defendant no. 1, was proceeded ex-parte. After considering the exparte evidence led by respondent no. 1, through judgment and decree dated 19.10.2007, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur (for short – the trial
court) decreed respondent no.1's suit. About six years thereafter i.e. in
MONIKA 2018.12.06 15:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR No. 7246 of 2017 (O&M) 2
September 2013, the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC seeking setting aside of the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Such application was dismissed by the trial court on 07.11.2016, against which the petitioner has filed an appeal which is pending before the Appellate Court. In the meanwhile, in the execution proceedings initiated by respondent no. 1, the petitioner filed objections to the effect that his application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was pending and that as per the revenue record, he was the owner of the suit property. Since the decree, the execution of which had been sought by respondent no. 1, had neither been reversed/modified nor the same had been stayed by any superior Court, the Executing Court dismissed the petitioner's objections. Such order of the Executing Court is the subject matter of challenge in the present proceedings.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard.
No fault is found with the order of the Executing Court seeking to execute the judgment and decree, through which respondent no.1/plaintiff's suit for possession has been decreed as such judgment and decree has neither been stayed nor reversed/modified by any superior Court, especially when the petitioner also has the remedy for seeking restitution of possession under Section 144 CPC in case the judgment and decree passed against the petitioner is set aside or modified in the Order 9 Rule 13 CPC proceedings being pursued by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree passed against him.
In view of the above, no merit is found in the present petition
MONIKA 2018.12.06 15:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR No. 7246 of 2017 (O&M) 3
and accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the dismissal of the present petition would not debar the petitioner from applying for stay before the Appellate Court where his appeal against the dismissal of his application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is pending.
( DEEPAK SIBAL ) JUDGE
November 28, 2018 monika
| Whether speaking/reasoned | ? Yes. |
|---|---|
| Whether reportable ? | No. |
MONIKA 2018.12.06 15:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can court objections in execution proceedings while a separate appeal against setting aside of ex-parte decree is pending?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
JASWINDER SINGH
UNNAMED RESPONDENT 1
DEEPAK SIBAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court