C.R. No.637 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.637 of 2008 Date of Decision: 6.2.20008 Bhupinder Singh and others .....Petitioners Vs. Brij Bhushan ...Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.A.S. Jattana, Advocate for the petitioners. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J Challenge in this revision petition is, to an order dated 21.9.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot, whereby the objection petition filed by the petitioners-judgement debtors, against issuance of warrants of possession was dismissed and an order dated 13.12.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridkot, whereby the appeal was dismissed. The respondent decree holder filed a suit for possession, with respect to land measuring 10 kanals bearing Khewat No.272 Khatoni No.640 Khasra No.230 as per jamabandi for the year 1994-95, situated within the revenue estate of Faridkot. The suit in brief was based upon a sale deed allegedly executed by Karam Singh on 18.5.1968. It was alleged that thereafter Karam Singh, in collusion with his brother Kaur Singh sold 5 Kanals of this land to one Usha Rani on 7.3.1983. Karam Singh (who has since passed away) denied the execution of the sale deed and pleaded C.R. No.637 of 2008 2 that he was in possession since 1969. Karam Singh filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 18.5.1968 was illegal, null and void and without consideration. In the alternative, he also prayed for grant of a decree on the basis of his adverse possession. Vide judgement and decree dated 3.1.2005, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot, decreed the suit for possession, filed by Brij Bhushan-respondent and dismissed the suit filed by the petitioners. An appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Faridkot vide judgement dated 14.5.2005. The respondent, filed an application for execution of the above mentioned decree. Rajinder Singh petitioner no.3, filed a suit for declaration against the respondent, accompanied by an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 CPC. Vide order dated 5.10.2006, the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot, restrained the respondent from using any force in dispossessing the petitioners, as admittedly, execution proceedings were pending. An appeal filed by the respondent against the said order was dismissed as execution proceedings were pending. On 15.6.2005, the Executing Court issued warrants of possession directing the petitioners/judgement-debtors to deliver possession of the suit land to the decree holder. The judgement debtors, however, caused obstruction and on an application filed by the decree holder, police help was granted vide order dated 17.10.2006, to execute the warrants of possession. The warrants of possession were executed on 10.1.2007 by Bhupinder Singh, Kanungo and possession of the suit land was allegedly delivered to the decree holder by demolishing a shop and a house and by ploughing vacant land. The petitioners/judgement-debtors filed an C.R. No.637 of 2008 3 objection petition dated 27.1.2007, alleging that they are still in possession of the disputed land and as during proceedings for delivery of possession, their crop had been destroyed, their shop had been demolished and electric machines etc. taken away, the loss caused be duly compensated. The respondent, on the other hand filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC, praying that as the judgement debtors were obstructing and resisting the delivery of possession, they be sent to civil prison. The Executing Court, after a considered appraisal of the objections, filed by the petitioners and the application filed by the respondent, held it was apparent from the objection petition, filed by the petitioners that they were still in possession and had not handed over complete possession of the suit property. It was also held that the petitioners were resisting delivery of the possession and as the Executing Court was duty bound to ensure compliance with the decree, the objections were consequently dismissed and the petitioners judgement debtors were directed under Order 21 Rule 98(1) CPC to deliver complete possession of the property to the decree holder, within a period of one month, failing which they would be sent to civil prison. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Faridkot. Which was dismissed on 13.12.2007 by holding that the petitioners were required to obey the decree and the Executing Court had rightly dismissed their objections. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the objections filed by the petitioners were dismissed summarily. No issues were framed and no opportunity was granted to adduce evidence. It is further submitted that the petitioners have constructed their house and a workshop. The decree for C.R. No.637 of 2008 4 possession of vacant land measuring 10 kanals is unexecutable and, therefore, the learned Executing Court, committed an error, in issuing warrants of possession. It is further submitted that as possession was already taken, pursuant to warrants of possession dated 15.6.2005, the learned Executing Court had no jurisdiction to once again direct delivery of possession. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned orders. The petitioners do not deny their status as judgement debtors under the judgement and decree dated 14.5.2005.. The petitioners are, therefore, bound by the terms and conditions of the decree, to deliver peacefully possession of the suit property. It is not denied that the property in their possession is subject matter of the decree under execution. It is also not disputed that during the pendency of the suit,the petitioners did not seek any relief,with respect to any alleged house/workshop, stated to be in existence, over the suit land. Consequently, they cannot be permitted to thwart the execution of the decree by asserting that the decree pertains to vacant land measuring 10 kanals, and not to a house and a workshop. These objections should have been raised and relief in respect thereof should have been prayed during the pendency of the suit. The Executing Court, therefore, rightly dismissed the objections. Another submission that the learned Executing Court did not frame any issues and did not call upon the petitioners to lead evidence, is without merit. The petitioners were required to deliver possession, in accordance with the judgement and decree passed against them. The objections raised do not assert any rights, distinct from the assertions C.R. No.637 of 2008 5 already negatived by the trial Court and the appellate Court, while decreeing the suit and dismissing the appeal. The learned Executing Court was, therefore, justified in dismissing the objections. Another argument raised by counsel for the petitioners is that as possession was delivered by the Kanungo on 10.1.2007, there was no occasion for the learned Executing Court, to once again issue warrants of possession. The said argument, apart from being fallacious does not merit acceptance. The petitioners continue to assert possession, a fact specifically admitted and emphatically asserted in the objection petition. The petitioners, by specifically asserting their possession, over the suit property have in essence admitted that warrants of possession were not executed. A decree cannot be said to be executed, till such time, as it is satisfied in its entirety. The petitioners assertion of possession, despite execution of warrants of possession, is an admission that the warrants of possession were not executed in their entirety. The learned Executing Court, therefore, rightly dismissed the objections and issued warrants of possession. The Executing Court, therefore, was well within its jurisdiction in directing the petitioners to deliver possession and/or face civil imprisonment. In view of what has been stated herein above, the revision petition is dismissed in limine. 6.2.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE