Dismissed¶20

Karmi v. Municipal Corporation Ludhiana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC21 May 2025CR/3604/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Execution petition; Order XXI Rule 32 CPC; permanent injunction decree; wilful and intentional disobedience; decree-holder; Executing Court; civil revision; Municipal Corporation Ludhiana; Karmi; Radhey Shyam Ahuja; sale deeds 12.03.1998 and 16.03.1998; street already in existence; carpeting of street; Punjab and Haryana High Court; Anil Kshetarpal; dismissed 21.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

The decree-holder is required to prove wilful and intentional disobedience of the injunction decree in order to succeed in an application under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC. ¶19

Karmi Vs Municipal Corporation Ludhiana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CR-3604-2016(O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CR-3604-2016(O&M) Date of decision:21.05.2025

¶4

Karmi through GPA Pritam Singh

¶5

..Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Municipal Corporation Ludhiana and others

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

Mr. H.S.Gharuan, Advocate for respondent no.1

¶12

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (Oral)

¶13

The petitioner assails the correctness of an order passed by the Executing Court while dismissing her execution petition filed under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A decree for the grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff except in due course of law was granted. Originally, the suit was filed by Smt. Karmi, who subsequently sold the property during the pendency of the suit vide two sale deeds dated 12.03.1998 and 16.03.1998. Radhey Shyam Ahuja claims to be purchaser of the property in the year 1998. While appearing in evidence, he admits that when he purchased the property, his vendor Smt. Karmi was not in possession and the street was already in existence. Hence, the court has held that the petitioner has failed to prove that there was any wilful violation of court decree.

¶14

Rekha Sihag 2025.05.26 00:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶15

CR-3604-2016(O&M)

¶16

¶17

Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that such admission of Radhey Shyam Ahuja does not prove that there was carpeting in the street.

¶18

This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel representing the parties.

¶19

The decree-holder is required to prove that there is wilful and intentional disobedience of injunction decree in order to succeed in an application under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Once the decree-holder has failed to substantiate the same, there is no error in the impugned order.

¶20

Hence, dismissed.

¶21

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are

¶22

also disposed of.

¶23

(ANIL KSHETARPAL) 21.05.2025 JUDGE rekha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶24

Rekha Sihag 2025.05.26 00:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Karmi v. Municipal Corporation Ludhiana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karmi v. Municipal Corporation Ludhiana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhdev Singh Vs Anita Rani and Others

Rati Ram Vs Bijender Singh and Others

Punjab Waqf Board (Now Known as Haryana Waqf Board) Vs Razaque Ali

Suresh Kumar and Anr. Vs Randhir Singh

Balrajwinder Singh Vs Jasbir Singh Kooner and Others

Ram Kumar Vs Deepak Arora