Civil Revision No.4186 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4186 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:13.07.2011 Bhoop Singh ......Petitioner Versus Partap Singh @ Pat Ram and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emitting from the record is, that the suit for a decree of permanent injunction filed by Partap Singh @ Pat Ram son of Mehar Chand son of Jai Kishan-respondent No.1-plaintiff(hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiff-DH”) was decreed and Bhoop Singh-petitioner-defendant and the remaining proforma respondent Nos.2 to 10-defendants(for brevity “the defendant-JDs”) were restrained from ousting him(plaintiff) from the suit property, by the trial Court by way of impugned judgment and decree dated 25.02.1999. 2. The plaintiff filed the execution petition, but the defendant-JDs filed the objection petition(Annexure P/2) to obstruct the execution of the decree. The Executing Court dismissed the objection petition of the defendant-JDs, by virtue of impugned order dated 11.02.2011. 3. Bhoop Singh-petitioner, one of the defendant-JD did not feel satisfied with the impugned order of the Executing Court and preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Civil Revision No.4186 of 2011 2 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this context. 5. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since, the defendant-JDs objector had already constructed a boundary wall around the land in dispute, so, the original decree cannot be executed, is not only devoid of merit but misconceived as well. 6. As is evident from the record that, the suit filed by the plaintiff-DH for a decree of permanent injunction, was decreed by the trial Court, by means of impugned judgment and decree dated 25.02.1999. It is not a matter of dispute that the said judgment and decree have attained the finality. 7. The Executing Court, after considering the report(Annexure P/3) of Satya Pal, B.Tech Engineer, Local Commissioner, concluded that the defendant-JD objector has constructed the boundary wall, much after passing of the main decree. Moreover, this plea was raised by them in the written statement, which was negatived by the trial Court during the course of trial. Once, the defendant-JDs were restrained from ousting the plaintiff from the land in dispute, then to me, the subsequent construction of the boundary wall by them, will not nullify the decree. Moreover, the Executing Court has recorded the valid grounds, while dismissing the objection petition filed by defendant-JDs, vide impugned order dated 11.02.2011, the operative part of which is, as under:- “The present execution is of the execution of the decree dated 25.2.1999 Ex.DH1 on record. According to this judgment and decree dated 25.02.1999, the defendants were restrained from raising the construction upon the land measuring 2 kanal 17 marlas comprising khewat No.115 khatoni No.195, mustgil and killa No.41//10/4 and 203 as per jamabandi for the year 1991-92 situated at Village Kunjpura, Tehsil Narnaul, without partition. The plea which has been taken by the objector is that the defendants have already constructed a boundary wall around the property in question and this plea has also been taken in the written statement. While contradictory to the plea of JD, the decree holder examined DHW2 Civil Revision No.4186 of 2011 3 Satpal who deposed on oath that the boundary wall was constructed about 6/1-4 years old. He prepared the report on 09.11.2009. Meaning thereby, the boundary wall if any was constructed around near the year of 2003. While the present decree was passed on 25.02.99. Moreover, this plea had already been taken by the objector in his written statement which was not accepted by the court and passed the judgment and decree dated 25.2.1999 Ex.DH/1. Moreover, this court cannot go behind the decree. There is no dispute with regard to the law settled Jai Narayan Vs.Boda Ram @ Boda Raj @ Bod Raj, 2007(2) LJR page 421 (P&H), but in view of the law relied upon by the counsel for the decree holder cited as Ram Singh & Another Vs. Shiv Narain & others, 2006(4) CCC page 518 (P&H), the JDs are directed to remove the construction raised around the property in question within the period of one month failing which the same would be removed at the cost of JDs after passing the above mentioned period. Accordingly, the objection petition is hereby dismissed.” 8. Meaning thereby, the Executing Court has recorded the valid grounds in the impugned order in this relevant behalf. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. As, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order dated 11.02.2011 is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. July 13, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.4186 of 2011 4