Partly allowed

Gangadhar and Others v. Kanhiya Lal

Rajasthan HC19 Jan 2015CR/199/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an SBCRP challenging an order dismissing judgment debtor objections without evidence opportunity, the High Court quashed the order directing the executing court to conduct a summary inquiry and decide the execution petition de novo within specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order; directed executing court to conduct summary inquiry and decide objections afresh within three weeks and dispose of petition within three months.

Gangadhar and Others Vs Kanhiya Lal — Execution and Attachment | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

SBCRP No.199/2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR

¶4

S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 199/2011 Gangadhar & Ors. Vs. Kanhiyalal

¶5

Date of Order

¶6

::: 19.01.2015

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL KUMAR JAIN

¶8

Mr. Shrey Gaharana, for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjay Sharma, for the respondent.

¶9

Civil Suit No. 127/1973 titled as Kanhiyalal S/o Kajormal Vs. Gangadhar & Ors. was decreed by the court of Additional Munsif Gangapur City on 12.7.1977 in favour of plaintiff Kanhiyalal and on the basis of that decree Kanhiyalal filed an execution petition in the court of Civil Judge (JD) Bamanwas, District Sawaimadhopur and that execution petition was dismissed by that court by order dated 16.09.1998. Gangadhar & Ors. did not remove obestacles and so another execution Petition No.6/2010 was filed by Kanhiyalal S/o Kajormal in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Bamanwas and in that execution proceeding. Gangadhar & Ors. filed objections but the executive Court did not give any opportunity to Gangadhar & Ors. Judgment debtors to lead evidence and their objections were dismissed in limine. Now the judgment debtors, Gangadhar & Ors. have filed this revision petition against the impugned order dated 26.11.2011.

¶10

I have heard both the parties. Non-petitioner Kanhiyalal submits that he is a senior citizen of the age of 80 years and fruits

¶11

¶12

SBCRP No.199/2011

¶13

of the decree dated 12.7.1977 have yet not been enjoyed by him and he submits that since last 38 years he is trying from pillar to post but could not reap the fruits of his decree. He submits that the petitioners (J.D.) had removed the obstacles to show the formal compliance of the decree and then they had again put the obstacles at nearby place so as to defeat the decree and every time he (nonpetitioner) is not supposed to file a new suit to restrain the petitioners from committing mischief again and again.

¶14

On the other hand petitioners submit that they had made full compliance of the decree dated 12.7.1977 passed in Civil Suit No.127/1973 and they admit that they have been again in the settled possession of nearby property of non-petitioner since last fourteen years and so non-petitioner cannot be allowed to dispossess them without due process of law and as per the petitioners, the non-petitioner may again file a fresh suit to dispossess them.

¶15

Irony of non-petitioner Kanhiyalal is apparent on the face of the record. Perhaps he may not be able in the lifetime to enjoy the fruits of the decree which was passed 38 years back in his favour but still he is supposed to follow the due process of law and so the executing court is hereby directed that the petitioners should be ordered to comply the decree dated 12.7.1977 in true spirit and if there is any direct or indirect disobedience of that mandatory order which was passed in Civil Suit No. 127/1973 then the petitioners

¶16

¶17

SBCRP No.199/2011

¶18

should be dealt with by tough hand. Hence, the impugned order Dt. 26.11.2011 is hereby quashed to the extent that after a very summary inquiry (which should be concluded within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order by the executing court) the objections filed by the petitioners should be decided afresh. Help of a commissioner may be taken in this regard and then the execution petition filed by 80 years old senior citizen Kanhiyalal S/o Kajormal should be finally disposed of preferably within three months.

¶19

Copy of this order be sent to the executing court immediately. Both the parties are hereby directed to appear before the executing court on 28.1.2015 at 10.30 a.m.

¶20

(ATUL KUMAR JAIN),J.

¶21

Sunita/Poonam

¶22

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.

¶23

(Sunita Kanwar) Jr.P.A.

¶24

¶25

SBCRP No.199/2011

Gangadhar and Others v. Kanhiya Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangadhar and Others v. Kanhiya Lal

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

Smt Lad Kanwar Vs Ladu and Others

Mahesh and Another Vs Nathu Lal and Others

Saroj and Others Vs U O I through G M Western Railway North

Harbhan and Others Vs Banny Singh and Others

Om Prakash Sharma Vs Prithvi Singh

State of Raj and Another Vs M/S Chandi and Company