Civil Revision No. 3303 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 3303 of 2006 Date of Decision: 19.12.2008 Rajeev Kumar …Petitioner Versus Pawan Kumar and Another ... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. D.D. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhwinder Singh Sudan, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. P.C. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) It was noticed by this Court that this case be heard along with Regular Second Appeal No. 1759 of 2006. In view of the fact that earlier, objection petitions filed by Nanak Chand and Kanta Bawa for same relief have been dismissed, there is nothing on the record to hold that the present revision petition be heard along with Regular Second Appeal No. 1759 of 2006. Since Nanak Chand and Kanta Bawa failed to prove that the demised premises belongs to Hindu Undivided Family, petitioner also cannot raise the same objection which has been earlier adjudicated Civil Revision No. 3303 of 2006 2 upon. In the Regular Second Appeal, the question raised is other way that the property is self-acquired property of Nanak Chand. In the present revision petition, Pawan Kumar, decree-holder, had filed execution for ejectment of Sanjay Kumar, tenant from the demised premises, which consist of one room, kitchen, verandah, bathroom, courtyard and latrine in House No. 119, Parade Mohalla, Kalka. Pawan Kumar is son of Nanak Chand. Nanak Chand's another daughter is Kanta Bawa. Rajeev Kumar, petitioner in the present revision petition, claim that he was brought up by Nanak Chand as his son. Pawan Kumar, decree-holder, filed an execution petition and warrants of possession were issued in his favour. Nanak Chand filed objections which were dismissed in 2002. Order of ejectment in the present case was passed on 26.7.1994. Thereafter, Kanta Bawa daughter of Nanak Chand filed objections. The same were also dismissed. She filed a revision petition in this Court bearing No. 4530 of 2005. The following order was passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court:- “Vide order dated 22.8.2005, objection application, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed by the executing Court. It is apparent from the records that the decree was passed way back in the year 1994 against one Sanjay Kumar at the instance of the respondent Pawan Kumar. This was an ex-parte decree. Sanjay Kumar challenged that decree but failed. When execution application was pending, Nanak Chand, father of the petitioner, filed objection application, stating that he, not Sanjay Kumar was in Civil Revision No. 3303 of 2006 3 possession of the property, in dispute. Issues were framed in that application, however, subsequently, that application was dismissed. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is claiming through his father Nanak Chand, order against whom had already become final. By noticing all these circumstances, executing Court has observed thus:- “8. After hearing rival submissions made by both the parties and documents placed on file, it reveals that the present execution petition filed by the DH on 26.9.94 for executing the decree dated 26.7.94. In the decree the respondent was directed to handover the vacant possession of the house bearing no. 119 (part) consisting of one room, kitchen, verandah, bathroom, courtyard and latrine on the ground floor, situated at Parade Mohalla, Kalka, District Ambala now Panchkula. Warrant of possession was issued. Thereafter, Nanak Chand filed objections and applications for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree u/o 9 rule 13 CPC which was later on dismissed in default and warrant of possession was again issued. Thereafter, the present objections filed by Civil Revision No. 3303 of 2006 4 Kanta Devi daughter of Nanak Chand alleging therein that she is in possession of the premises in dispute being Hindu Joint Family property. She alleged in para no.6 of the objections that Sanjay/JD was tenant in the property in question but he was only a paying guest and left the house even before filing the eviction petition against him which shows that JD Sanjay Kumar was in possession of the premises in dispute who was evicted from the premises by the then Rent Controller vide order dated 26.7.94. Civil suit regarding ownership of property is pending in another Court which was not related to the present execution. As for satisfying the decree dated 26.7.94, the possession should be delivered to the DH. The JD as well as objector or any family member has no right to remain in possession of the disputed premises. The identity of the property which was in possession of Sanjay is not disputed by the objector. The objector should surrender the possession in view of the decree dated 26.7.94. 9. The objections raised by the Civil Revision No. 3303 of 2006 5 objector on the ground that Sanjay was not in possession of the premises in dispute, have no weight as Sanjay filed a civil suit against Nanak Chand and Pawan Kumar for permanent injunction on 6.6.89 in which he clearly mentioned that he is tenant over the part of house no. 119 which is described in the execution petition. The warrant of possession were issued along with site plan which is not disputed by the objector in objections. The disputed property is described in the site plan was not disputed by the JD. The right of objector to be determined by the civil court in another civil suit which has been filed by the objector but not in the execution petition. In the present execution petition DH has right to take possession of the demised premises and objections raised b the objectors are not maintainable. The dictum laid down in the authorities referred by objector is not applicable to the present case as the facts of the present case entirely different. The objector filed the present objections only to delay the proceedings of warrant of possession”. Civil Revision No. 3303 of 2006 6 This Court feels that the order passed is perfectly justified. Once, Nanak Chand has failed, through whom, the petitioner is claiming her rights in the property, in dispute, this Court feels that she has no right whatsoever, to agitate the same matter and the dispute, which had become final between Pawan Kumar and Nanak Chand. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed”. A Co-ordinate Bench held that since Kanta Bawa was claiming her rights in the property through Nanak Chand, the fact that Nanak Chand failed, nothing remain for Kanta Bawa to agitate. In the present case, status of Rajeev Kumar, petitioner, is even worse. He claim that he was brought up by Nanak Chand as his son. Therefore, he is raising same objections which were raised by Nanak Chand and Kanta Bawa. It is sad that decree-holder Pawan Kumar who got decree in his favour in 1994 is yet to obtain possession of the premises. Therefore, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 19, 2008 “DK”