Dismissed¶22

Kashmiri Lal Kapoor v. the Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Rohtak and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Feb 2026CR/1543/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Execution of decree; renewal of licence denied beyond decree scope; Surveyor-cum-Draftsman/Architect registration; Municipal Corporation, Rohtak; year-to-year licence; no fresh application or fee deposit; objections of Judgment Debtors allowed by Executing Court (31.08.2018); appeal dismissed by First Appellate Court (02.11.2019); civil revision petition CR-1543-2020 dismissed by Justice Alka Sarin on 09.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

The licence for Surveyor-cum-Draftsman/Architect is granted on a year-to-year basis, and the suit pertained to renewal of the licence only for the year 2013. ¶21

Kashmiri Lal Kapoor Vs the Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Rohtak and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

263

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CR-1543-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision : 09.02.2026

¶4

Kashmiri Lal Kapoor ... Petitioner Versus The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rohtak and Another ... Respondents

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

¶6

Present : Mr. Deepak Girotra, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Addl. AG Haryana for the respondents.

¶8

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

¶9

Present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner challenging the order dated 31.08.2018 passed by the Executing Court whereby the application field by the plaintiff-petitioner has been disposed off as also the order dated 02.11.2019 passed by the First Appellate Court whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff-petitioner against the order dated 31.08.2018 has been dismissed.

¶10

The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiffpetitioner herein filed a civil suit for declaration and consequential relief of mandatory injunction. The suit was that the plaintiff-petitioner, who was Surveyor-cum-Draftsman/Architect, was not being granted renewal of his registration for the year 2013. The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 22.12.2015. The plaintiff-petitioner thereafter wrote a letter to the Joint

¶11

JITENDER KUMAR 2026.02.10 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶12

CR-1543-2020

¶13

-2-

¶14

Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rohtak requesting him for registration of the plaintiff-petitioner as a Surveyor-cum-Draftsman/ Architect for the period 2013 to 2016 in terms of the order of the Court. Thereafter, execution was filed on 26.09.2016 seeking renewal of the registration as a Surveyor-cum-Draftsman/Architect from the year 2013 to 2016. Objections were filed on behalf of the Judgment Debtors (respondents herein). Reply was filed to the objections. Vide the impugned orders the objections filed by the JDs were allowed holding that as per the decree passed, the license of the plaintiff-petitioner had been renewed for the year 2013, however, no fresh application has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for further renewal for the year 2014 onwards. It was further held that for granting the license for a further period the plaintiff-petitioner would have to file a requisite application and deposit the fee as per rules and the Department would consider the same in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition has been filed.

¶15

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner would contend that once there was a decree in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner, it was incumbent on the respondents to have renewed his license till 2016.

¶16

Per contra learned State counsel has pointed out that the period for which the renewal was sought in the suit was only for the year 2013, which was accordingly done and license of the plaintiff-petitioner was renewed for the period 2013. However, thereafter no application was moved. The licence is to be issued year to year, and the plaintiff-petitioner did not file any application nor deposit the fee. In the absence of the same, no further renewal could have been granted on the basis of the decree.

¶17

Heard.

¶18

JITENDER KUMAR 2026.02.10 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

CR-1543-2020

¶20

-3-

¶21

In the present case, the license for Surveyor-cumDraftsman/Architect is granted on a year-to-year basis. The suit pertained to renewal of the license only for the year 2013. Post the decree the license was renewed for the period 2013. Thereafter, the plaintiff-petitioner did not file any application for renewal of his license nor deposited the fee regarding the same. In the absence of any application having been filed or any fee having been deposited, merely on the strength of the decree which pertained to the period 2013, no further renewal can be granted.

¶22

In view of the above, present revision petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

¶23

09.02.2026 ( ALKA SARIN ) jk JUDGE

¶24

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

¶25

JITENDER KUMAR 2026.02.10 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Kashmiri Lal Kapoor v. the Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Rohtak and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashmiri Lal Kapoor v. the Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Rohtak and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gursahib Singh Vs M/S Industrial Engineers and Fabricators Pvt. Ltd.

Ranbir and Others Vs Zile Singh Yadav and Another

Ishwar Singh Vs Subhash Chander

Hardev Singh & Ors. Vs Girdhari Lal & Ors.

Ramesh Chander and Another Vs Shankar Lal Saini and Others

Tarugir and Others Vs Anoop Kumar and Others