Disposed

Rajinder Kumar v. Veena Kukar and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Jan 2019CR/18/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition challenging the rejection of an application to recall possession warrants. The Court stayed execution of warrants for 7 days to allow the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority for interim relief, noting the appeal was pending.

What did the court decide?

Stay of execution of warrants of possession for 7 days from the date of order; liberty to petitioner to seek interim relief from Appellate Authority.

Rajinder Kumar Vs Veena Kukar and Anr. — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

CR-18-2019

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Civil Revision No.18 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision:January 08, 2019.

¶5

Rajinder Kumar

¶6

......PETITIONER(s).

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Smt. Veena Kukar and another

¶9

....RESPONDENT(s).

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner (s).

¶12

¶13

SURINDER GUPTA, J.

¶14

Heard.

¶15

This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 27.11.2018 passed by executing Court, whereby application of petitioner for recalling warrants of possession has been declined.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after passing of ejectment order against him, petitioner filed appeal, which is pending before the Appellate Authority, Fazilka. The appeal was filed in the year 2017 along with application for grant of interim relief of staying the execution of ejectment order. The Appellate Authority has not passed any order on that application. In the meanwhile, executing Court issued warrants of possession on 03.11.2018 and the petitioner applied for withdrawal of warrants of possession but his application was declined on the ground that there is no order staying the execution of ejectment order.

¶17

SACHIN MEHTA 2019.01.08 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

¶18

CR-18-2019

¶19

-2-

¶20

So far as the order passed by executing Court is concerned, the same does not suffer from any legal infirmity calling for any interference. The remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the Appellate Authority and make request for stay of execution proceedings or to decide his application for interim stay. Instead of approaching the Appellate Authority, petitioner has rushed to this Court.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appeal is fixed for today before the Appellate Authority.

¶22

This petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to request to Appellate Authority for interim relief or to decide his application.

¶23

In the meanwhile, execution of warrants of possession shall remain stayed, for a period of 7 days from today.

¶24

It is, however, made clear that after the expiry of period of 7 days, warrants of possession may be executed without seeking any further clarification from this Court.

¶25

( SURINDER GUPTA ) January 08, 2019. JUDGE Sachin M.

¶26

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶27

SACHIN MEHTA 2019.01.08 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

Rajinder Kumar v. Veena Kukar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajinder Kumar v. Veena Kukar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sarla and Ors.

Harbhajan Singh Vs Avtar Singh

Sher Singh and Ors. Vs Om Parkash

Sukhwant Singh Vs State of Haryana

Charanjit Kaur Vs Ravinder Kaur and Anr.

Puran Chand Vs Municipal Committee and Ors.