Parveen Kumar Garg Vs Raj Kumar and Others

Th e present revision petition has b een filed by the petitioner, a th i rdparty objector, challenging the order dated 1 3.08.2025 passed by the lear n ed Additional Civi l Judge (Senior Division), Kait h al, in Execution Petition No. E X E- 125/2019, whe r eby the application moved by the petitioner for impleading the Haryana Waqf B oard as a party in the executio n petition was dismissed.

¶17

Brief Facts

¶18

Re s pondents No.1 to 4, being decr e e holders, had obtained an evic t ion order against t h e judgment-debtor Vipin Kum a r vide judgment dated 25.02.2 0 19 passed in Rent Petition No. 1782 of 2014 by t h e Rent Controller, Kaithal, on the ground of arre a rs of rent and personal necessi t y. In order to enforce the evic t ion decree, the decree holders filed the execution p e tition.

¶19

D u ring pendency of the executio n , the present petitioner, brothe r of the judgment- d ebtor, moved an application f or impleading the Haryana W aqf

¶20

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CR-5814-2025 (O&M) - 2 -

¶22

Board as a nec e ssary party, claiming that the l a nd on which the tenanted prem i ses is situated belo n gs to the Waqf Board, which had leased it out to the Munic i pal Committee, K a ithal, for 99 years vide lease deed dated 07.12.1967, and t hat subsequently t h e Board had resumed possessi o n of the premises and re-leased it out to the petiti o ner himself. On this basis, the p etitioner contended that the de c ree was inexecutab l e and that Waqf Board being th e true owner ought to be added a s a party.

¶23

Th e learned Executing Court, afte r considering the rival submissi o ns, dismissed the a p plication vide impugned order d ated 13.08.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the petiti o ner has preferred the present re v ision.

¶24

Arguments of the Petitioner

¶25

Le a rned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the grounds take n in the revision pet i tion. It is submitted that the Re n t Controller, Kaithal, while pas s ing the eviction or d er dated 25.02.2019, had no ju r isdiction to entertain the matte r in view of Sectio n 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995, as t h e property is admittedly the W aqf property. It is a r gued that neither the Waqf Boa r d nor the petitioner was implea d ed in the original e viction proceedings and theref o re the decree passed is not bin d ing upon them.

¶26

It is contended that the Waqf Boa r d is the necessary and proper p a rty in the executio n , as the matter directly involve s its ownership and control over the tenanted premi s es. It is argued that the decree h olders/respondents No.1 to 4 have no concern wit h the property once the lease in f avour of the Municipal Commi t tee came to an en d , and any order of eviction ob t ained by them cannot be enfo r ced against the rights of the Waqf Board or the pe t itioner claiming through the W aqf Board.

¶27

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CR-5814-2025 (O&M) - 3 -

¶29

Le a rned counsel further argued tha t unless the Haryana Waqf Board is impleaded in t he execution petition, the controversy cannot be effecti v ely adjudicated, an d multiplicity of proceedings wi l l arise. He prayed for setting a s ide of the impugn e d order dated 13.08.2025 and for allowing impleadment of the Waqf Board in t he execution proceedings.

¶30

Arguments of the Respondents

¶31

O n the other hand, learned counse l for the respondents/decree hol d ers has opposed th e petition. He has reiterated the submissions which were adva n ced before the Executing Court. It is contended tha t the present application was on l y a device to delay the execution of the eviction d e cree which had attained finalit y on 25.02.2019. Th e petitioner is none else but the r eal brother of the judgment de b tor, and therefore h a s no independent locus to inter v ene in the matter. 9. It i s further argued that the Rent Controller had passed the evic t ion order against t h e tenant Vipin Kumar, and t he present execution is only for enforcing that o rder. The question of title, o w nership, or leasehold rights of the Waqf Board o r the Municipal Committee ar e wholly outside the scope of the execution petition. The Executing Court cann o t go behind the decree, nor ca n it reopen questio n s that were never raised in the e v iction proceedings. 10. Co u nsel submitted that the applic a tion was devoid of merits, mor e so when a similar prayer to implead the Waqf Bo a rd had been earlier rejected in the main proceedin g s. He prayed for dismissal of t h e revision petition with costs.

¶32

Findings

¶33

I h a ve considered the submissions of both sides and carefully per u sed

¶34

the record.

¶35

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

CR-5814-2025 (O&M) - 4 -

¶37

Th e eviction order dated 25.02.20 1 9 passed in Rent Petition No. 1 7 82 of 2014 has a t tained finality and has not be e n shown to be set aside by a ny competent foru m . The execution petition is l i mited to enforcement of the s aid eviction decree. The law is well settled that the Executing Court cannot go be h ind the decree and c annot examine questions of tit l e or ownership which were not the subject matter o f the eviction proceedings.

¶38

Th e plea of the petitioner that the p roperty belongs to the Waqf B o ard and that he has obtained a lease from the Boar d is a matter extraneous to the sc o pe of the execution petition. Such questions m ay be agitated in indepen d ent proceedings, b u t they cannot be allowed to der a il the execution of a decree alre a dy passed after du e adjudication by a competent R e nt Controller. 14. Th e learned Executing Court ha s rightly noted that the judg m ent debtor never r a ised any plea regarding surre n der of the premises to the W aqf Board during t h e eviction proceedings. The b elated attempt by his brother, the present petition e r, to set up the rights of the W aqf Board is clearly collusive a nd aimed only at d elaying the execution. The tri a l court has also recorded that the provisions of t he Waqf Act are not attracte d in the present execution as no proceedings fo r eviction were ever initiated by the Waqf Board against the Municipal Com m ittee or the decree holders. 15. O n ce the decree was passed in fav o ur of the decree holders against the judgment debt o r Vipin Kumar, the executi o n can only proceed against the judgment debtor in accordance with law. The i mpleadment of the Waqf Boar d is neither necessa r y nor proper for enforcement o f the eviction order.

¶39

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶40

CR-5814-2025 (O&M) - 5 -

¶41

Conclusion

¶42

Th i s Court, in exercise of revision a l jurisdiction, finds no infirmit y or perversity in th e reasoning adopted by the Ex e cuting Court. The impugned o r der dated 13.08.20 2 5 does not call for interference.

¶43

Part-B

¶44

By way of the present revision pet i tion, petitioner has also challen g ed impugned orde r dated 13.08.2025 passed by t he learned Additional Civil Ju d ge (Senior Divisio n ), Kaithal, whereby the objecti o n under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the p etitioner/third party objector w as dismissed.

¶45

At the very outset, it deserves to be noticed that the petitioner i s a third-party objector. The law is well settled t h at no civil revision lies agains t an order passed o n third-party objections in execu t ion proceedings. Such an ord e r is appealable und e r the Code of Civil Procedure. O nce a specific remedy of appe a l is available, the revisional jurisdiction of this Cou r t cannot be invoked.

¶46

In v iew of the matter, the present r e vision petition is not maintaina b le. The petitioner, if so advised, may avail of t h e appropriate statutory remed y in accordance wit h law.

¶47

Ac c ordingly, the revision petiti o n is dismissed and order d a ted 13.08.2025 pa s sed by the learned Addition a l Civil Judge (Senior Divisi o n), Kaithal, where b y the objection under Order X XI Rule 97 of the Code of C ivil Procedure, 1908 filed by the petitioner/third party objector was dismissed, is upheld.

¶48

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶49

CR-5814-2025 (O&M) - 6 -

¶50

Part-C

¶51

Th e petitioner has also challenge d impugned order dated 13.08.2 0 25 passed by the l e arned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal, wher e by the warrants of p ossession of the demised prem i ses has been issued.

¶52

In v iew of the findings given herei n above, no interference is called for in the order dat e d 13.08.2025, whereby the wa r rants of possession of the dem i sed premises has b e en issued. Accordingly, the pr e sent revision petition is dismi s sed and order dated 13.08.2025 is upheld.

¶53

Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶54

September 02, 2 025 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Wheth e r speaking/non-speaking : Spea k ing Wheth e r reportable : Yes/ N o

¶55

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Parveen Kumar Garg v. Raj Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parveen Kumar Garg v. Raj Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Singh Vs Brij Mohan Dhall and Another

Prem Chand and Ors. Vs Ram Lal and Ors.

Baldev Kaur etc. Vs Gurdev Singh and Ors.

Jagjit Singh Gulati Alias Jagjit Singh Vs Dushyant Verma

Nihal Kaur and Ors. (B.O.) Vs Gurdev Singh and Ors.

National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Sunita etc.