IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ESA No.23 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 05.09.2011 Neki Ram … Appellant Versus Ravinder Kumar Sanghi and others …Respondents ESA No.24 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 05.09.2011 Neki Ram … Appellant Versus Ravinder Kumar Sanghi and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI Present: Mr.I.K.Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Mr.M.S.Kohli, Advocate for the appellant. K.C.Puri, J. Since both these objections petitions have been preferred by the same objector regarding the adjoining property and the matter is similar in nature and as such, both have been disposed of by way of common order. Challenge in these two appeals are the orders dated 17.8.2011 passed by Shri Rajneesh Bansal, Additional District Judge, Narnaul vide which two appeals preferred by the objector against the judgment dated 02.06.2011 passed by Shri Parveen Gupta, Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Narnaul were dismissed. Briefly stated that objector Neki Ram son of Mool Chand Yadav filed objections under Order 21 Rules 97 to 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the execution petition filed by decree holder for execution of decree dated 29.11.2005 passed in Civil Suit No.159 of 1996/2001 and affirmed upto the Hon’ble Apex Court. ESA No.23 of 2011 (O&M) ESA No.24 of 2011 (O&M) Objector has pleaded that decree holder filed a suit for ejectment of the JD namely Devender Kumar Yadav from the shops in question. He succeeded in obtaining a decree against Devender Kumar Yadav by misrepresenting the facts. It is pleaded that said decree is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the objector. Objector took the shops in question on rent from Om Parkash Sanghi, the father of the decree holder. JD- Devender Kumar used to practice as an Advocate in District Courts at Narnaul. Objector started the business of sale of spare parts and tyres in the shops in question. He took two adjacent shops on rent from Om Parkash Sanghi. It is further pleaded that objector had been running business in the shops in question. The decree holder got two different rent notes executed with regard to two different shops in the name of his son Devinder Kumar and his relative Jai Singh just as a security. Jai Singh singed the rent note as he was under the influence of decree holder and his brothers. The rent notes executed between the decree holder and JD were just paper transaction. Objector himself had been running the business in the shops in question under the name and style of M/s Yadav Tyre House. He is its sole proprietor. The rent is being paid by the firm to the landlord. He has independent right to retain the possession of the shops in question. The decree dated 29.11.2005 passed in civil suit No.159 of 1996/2001 is not binding upon his rights in any manner as he was not a party to it. On put to notice, the decree holder filed reply to the application pleading therein that the objections moved by the objector are false and frivolous and have been file just to delay the execution proceedings. He has denied that the shops in question had been in possession of the objector or that same was let out to him. The same objections were taken by the JD as a defence in the civil suit, wherein a decree was passed in favour of the decree 2 ESA No.23 of 2011 (O&M) ESA No.24 of 2011 (O&M) holder. He also denied that the rent note was executed as a security in the name of JD. Objector never came in possession of the shop in question as a tenant under the land lord. The executing Court dismissed the objections in both the execution petitions. Feeling dissatisfied with the above orders dated 02.06.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Narnaul, the objector preferred two appeals. Both the appeals were dismissed vide judgments dated 17.8.2011 passed by Shri Rajneesh Bansal, Additional District Judge, Narnaul. Still feeling dissatisfied with the above aforesaid orders and judgments, the appellant has preferred ESA No.23 of 2011 and ESA No.24 of 2011. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that both the shops were taken by the appellant from the father of decree holder. The rent notes have been wrongly executed by Devinder Kumar Yadav and Jai Singh. The appellant is the sole proprietor of the firm, who was carrying on the business. The decree of ejectment against those two persons cannot be executed against the appellant. I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant but find no force in the said submissions. Both the courts below have given a concurrent finding of fact that the appellant has failed to prove that he is the tenant in the demised premises. The appellant could not produce any rent note or any other evidence to prove that he is in possession of the suit property as a tenant. Concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below cannot be adjudicated in the present ESAs. Devinder Kumar is the son of Neki Ram-appellant and Jai Singh is the relative. Decree holder has been able to get the decree of ejectment 3 ESA No.23 of 2011 (O&M) ESA No.24 of 2011 (O&M) against Devinder Kumar and Jai Singh tenants which has been affirmed upto the Hon’ble Apex Court. After loosing the case in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present objections have been filed by the appellant just to delay the proceedings of the case. The prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant is that objections be decided after framing the issues which have not rightly been discarded by both the courts below. It is a settled law that frivolous objections filed by the objector can be dismissed out rightly. In view of the above discussion, both the objections petitions are without any merit and the same stand dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. A photo copy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. ( K.C. Puri) Judge 02.09.2011 sd 4