C.R. No. 4801 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4801 of 2011 Date of Decision: 27.9.2011 Hans Raj and another ....Petitioners. Versus Hira Lal ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Challenge in the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 1.8.2011 whereby the objection petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the executing court. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent and petitioner No.1 are the real brothers. The father of the parties died on 21.11.1986 leaving behind his widow Bishan Devi, five sons and two daughters. Bishan Devi died on 23.4.1989. In the year 1990, a family settlement was arrived at between the parties and as per the family settlement, part of the property came to the shares of the plaintiff and defendant. The defendant filed a suit for mandatory injunction alleging that the petitioners were licencees in House No. 210/1, Ground Floor and they be directed to hand over the possession. The trial court C.R. No. 4801 of 2011 -2- decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 26.3.2010. Against the judgment and decree dated 26.3.2010, the appeals filed before the lower appellate court as well as the regular second appeal before the High Court were dismissed. It has further been alleged that initially, the suit for declaration was filed by Hira Lal which was decreed in his favour by a consent decree dated 23.1.1992. So far as allotment of part property is concerned, the allotment was made in favour of Pritam Ram, father of the parties with respect to House No. 210-A, Kasai Mohalla, B.C. Bazar, Ambala Cantt. By virtue of family settlement between the decree holder and his brothers etc., the portion of House No. 210, Kasai Mohalla fell to the share of decree holder and was marked as 210/1. The accommodation in House No. 210/1 is one room on the ground floor and two rooms and kitchen on the first floor. The objectors claimed that portion of House No. 211, Kasai Mohalla consisting of two rooms, kitchen, bathroom, toilet and one shop fell to his share and is in possession of the same along with his son-Om Parkash. On that basis, the objectors claimed that they were occupying different property which was not a part of the decree and filed objection petition. The respondent filed reply to the said objection petition. The executing court without framing the issues, dismissed the objection petition vide order dated 1.8.2011. Hence, the present revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in possession of different property whereas decree has been passed in favour of the decree-holder respondent in respect of C.R. No. 4801 of 2011 -3- House No. 210/1, Ground Floor. It was urged that under the circumstances, the possession could not be taken from the petitioners. 5. The executing court after appreciation of the material on record held the objections to be false and frivolous and that it had been filed only to delay the execution of the decree. Further, it was held that even as per the house tax entries, the suit property was owned by the decree-holder. The relevant findings recorded by the executing court in paras 7 to 9 of the order read thus:- “7. From the perusal of the file, it is evident that a decree for mandatory injunction was passed in favour of decree holder Hira Lal against JDs Hans Raj and Om Parkash qua the property bearing No. 210/1. The suit was hotly contested by the objectors and they never took the plea in that suit which has been maintained by them in the present objections. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed by first appellate court and even before the appellate court, no plea regarding the wrong identification of the suit property was ever agitated by the objectors. Now the objections, which have been maintained by the objectors, are false and frivolous and have been filed only to delay the execution of the decree. It is also crystal clear on the cursory perusal of the statement of Om Parkash son of Hans Raj that he sought time for the vacation of the suit property in dispute and thereafter, got the injunction order in his favour. C.R. No. 4801 of 2011 -4- 8. Now, it does not lie in the mouth of the objectors to say that wrong decree has been obtained by the decree holder in his favour. The objectors are supposed to comply with the decree and they are also supposed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property in compliance of the decree, which was passed against them. The house tax entries on the record are also highlighting the correct position that the suit property bearing No. 210/1 is owned by decree holder Hira Lal. 9. Now, as a cumulative effect of my above discussion, I am of the view that objections in hand are false and frivolous and have been maintained to circumvent the decree, which was passed in favour of the decree holder and against the objectors. Further, since the objections are false and frivolous, therefore, same are hereby dismissed and objectors are burdened with cost of Rs.500/- payable in District Legal Services Authority, Ambala.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the executing court which may warrant interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. September 27, 2011 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE