Civil Revision No. 2142 of 2009 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2142 of 2009 Date of decision. 10.08.2009 1.Atma Singh s/o Arjan Singh r/o village Harkhowal, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur. 2.Nirmal Singh s/o Rakha Singh r/o village Rajputan Bhaian, now r/o at Katcha Rasta Shergarh, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur. ....... Petitioners Versus 1. Sewa Singh, 2. Madan Mohan Singh, 3. Malkiat Singh, sons of Karam Singh, (now. 1 and 3 through Madan Mohan Singh, no.2 as their Mukhtiar-aam, all residents of village Shergarh, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, 4. Union of India through the Secretary, Rehabilitation Union of India, New Delhi, 5. Jiwan Dass, 6. Shabil Dass sons of Haria Ram, 7. Bhagwani Bai widow of Khem Chand, rs/o Rajputan Township, H. No. 1668, District Patiala, through Dhian Singh s/o Hari Singh of village Harkhowal, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, as Mukhtiar-aam of respondent nos. 5 to 7, 8. Charan Singh s/o Gurdit Singh, r/o village Shergarh, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur,9 Jagjit Kaur (deceased) w/o Major Singh r/o Kathea Road, Shergarh, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, represented her legal representative Major Singh s/o Gurcharan Singh, r/o Katcha Road, Shergarh, Ravidas Nagar, Hoshiarpur, 10. Sukhwinder Ram s/o Ram Dass, r/o village Garli, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur, 11. Satpal s/o Diwan Chand r/o Dadaur, District Jalandhar, 12. Tej Ram s/o Jassa Ram, r/o Phambian, Tehsil Garshankar, District Hoshiarpur, 13. Joginder Pal s/o Hari Ram, r/o village Barjrawar, Hoshiarpur, 14. Amarjit Kaur wife of Ram Rattan, r/o Bachhohi, Tehsil Civil Revision No. 2142 of 2009 --2-- Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur, 15. Surjit Kumar son of Ankat Ram, r/o Langeri Mahilpur, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur. ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr.Onkar Singh,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Hitesh Sood, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3. **** Sham Sunder, J. This revision-petition is directed against the order dated 28.02.2009, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur, vide which it dismissed the objection petition under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the Judgment debtors, Nirmal Singh, Atma Singh, Sukhwinder Ram, Satpal, Tej Ram and Surjit Kumar. 2. In the objection petition, filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Civil Revision No. 2142 of 2009 --3-- Procedure, it was stated by the aforesaid judgment debtors, out of whom, Atma Singh and Nirmal Singh, are the revision petitioners, that they had built their houses for their residence, after purchasing the land, in dispute, for valuable consideration, without notice of any defect in the title of their vendors. It was further stated that they could not be thrown out of their houses, without alternative accommodation, having been provided to them and their families. It was further stated that they would suffer an extreme hardship, in case, they were thrown out, on the basis of the judgments and decrees. It was prayed that after due enquiry, the objection petition be accepted. 3. In reply to the objection petition, it was pleaded that the same was not maintainable. It was stated that the plaintiffs (decree holders) were having a decree for possession in their favour. It was further stated that if the objectors Civil Revision No. 2142 of 2009 --4-- had raised any construction, then the decree holders are not bound by the same, as the suit for possession filed against them and their vendors, after removal of construction, had already been decreed. It was further stated that before the trial Court, the decree holders/ plaintiffs moved an application, under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for restraining the judgments debtors from raising any construction, but they intentionally raised the same, at their own risk and cost. It was further stated that the Court of Mr. A.S. Kathuria, held in its decision dated 01.06.1978 that, if any construction was raised by the judgment debtors, during the pendency of the lis, that would be removed at their own risk and cost and they would not be entitled to any compensation. It was further stated that they were very well aware with regard to the decision of the Court, but they showed ignorance. It was further stated that once the decree was Civil Revision No. 2142 of 2009 --5-- passed, in favour of the plaintiffs (now respondents) and up-held upto the Apex Court, the Executing Court was to execute the same and could not go behind the same. It was further stated that the objection- petition was liable to be dismissed. 4. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the record, the trial Court dismissed the objection petition. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision petitioners. 6. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 7. The Counsel for the revision- petitioners, submitted that the revision- petitioners, and other judgment debtors raised construction of their residential houses, over the property, in dispute, before filing the suit and even thereafter. He further submitted that the decree holders had been witnessing the Civil Revision No. 2142 of 2009 --6-- construction, but they did not raise any objection, at that very time. He further submitted that it was required of the trial Court, to strike issues, on the objection-petition, and after affording opportunity to the parties, to lead evidence, decide the same, one way or the other. He further submitted that the trial Court was not competent to dismiss the objection-petition summarily. He further submitted that the revision-petitioners, being the bona-fide purchasers of the property, in dispute, over which they raised residential houses, in case, the same were to be removed, they were entitled to compensation. He further submitted that the order impugned, being illegal, was liable to be set aside. 8. The Counsel for the respondents, however, supported the order impugned. 9. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my Civil Revision No. 2142 of 2009 --7-- considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It may be stated here, that Sewa Singh, Madan Mohan Singh and Malkiat Singh, plaintiffs (now respondents) filed a suit for possession, on the ground, that they were the owners of the property, in dispute, against the judgment debtors (now revision petitioners) and others. That suit was dismissed by the Court of Sub Judge IInd Class, Hoshiarpur, vide judgment and decree dated 05.08.1980,(Annexure P-1). An appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs (therein appellants) and the First Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 05.10.1982, dismissed the same. Still feeling dis-satisfied, the plaintiffs filed a Regular Second Appeal, which was accepted by this Court, vide judgment and decree dated 02.05.2007. Feeling aggrieved, the judgment debtors, filed a Special Leave Petition, in the Apex Court, which was dismissed, on Civil Revision No. 2142 of 2009 --8-- account of delay, as also on merits, vide order dated 18.01.2008.Since the revision petitioners, were a party to the aforesaid litigation, they very well knew that during the pendency of the lis, if any property had been purchased by them, and they raised construction thereon, they were bound by the judgment and decrees, which may be passed by the Courts. After having lost their case upto the Apex Court, it did not lie in the mouth of the judgment debtors (revision petitioners), that the Executing Court should have decided the same issue again on merits, which was, in dispute, in the objection- petition, under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Executing Court is to execute the decree as it is, and it cannot go behind the same. Under these circumstances, the Executing Court was not required to strike issues, on the objection petition and afford an opportunity to the objector-petitioners, to lead evidence, with regard to the same Civil Revision No. 2142 of 2009 --9-- subject matter, which had already been finally adjudicated upon, upto the Apex Court, in the lis between the parties. The trial Court was competent to decide the objection petition summarily, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. If the judgment-debtors raised any construction, during the pendency of the lis, they did so at their own risk and cost, and were required to remove the same in execution of the decree. The fact remains that they were bound by the judgments and decrees passed upto the Apex Court. Reliance was placed by the Counsel for the revision-petitioners on Shreenath and another v. Rajesh and others AIR 1998 (Supreme Court ) 1827, Anwarbi v. Pramod D.A. Joshi and others (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 405, Jagdish Lal and another v. Surender Kumar and others, AIR 1985 Punjab and Haryana 76 and Subhendu Gupta v. Calcutta Vyapar Pratisthan Ltd. 1995 (3) RCR 443 in Civil Revision No. 2142 of 2009 --10-- support of his contention that the objection petition was required to be decided only after striking the issues and affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. In Shreenath and another's case (supra), the third party was in possession, claiming independent right as a tenant. In these circumstances, it was held by the Apex Court that such party could object and get his claim adjudicated upon, when sought to be dispossessed, by the decree holder, and he need not wait until he is dispossessed. In Anwarbi 's case (supra) , a person in possession of immovable property claimed legal entitlement thereto and obstructed the execution of decree for possession. In these circumstances, it was held that such person may not be dispossessed till his rights are adjudicated upon in appropriate proceedings. In Jagdish Lal's case (supra) decree for possession of shop by way of redemption, was passed. In the Civil Revision No. 2142 of 2009 --11-- execution application, the tenant/ judgment-debtor filed an objection petition on the ground of extension of tenancy, by one of the decree holders. It was held that the dispute was covered by Order 21 Rule 97 CPC and not by Section 47 CPC, and the appeal against the order was competent. In Subhendu Gupta's case (supra) it was held that a person, whosoever, obstructs execution of a decree has a right of hearing and, as such, falls within the category of parties to the proceedings and, therefore, the question has to be adjudicated on consideration of evidence. The facts of the aforesaid authorities, are clearly distinguishable, from the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In the instant case, both the revision-petitioners were parties to the lis, which was decided upto the Apex Court, in favour of the plaintiffs (now respondents). They are not third parties, who claimed their independent right, in Civil Revision No. 2142 of 2009 --12-- the property, in dispute, and wanted their right to be adjudicated upon in the objection-petition by leading evidence. Had they been not a party to the lis, the matter would have been different. They being parties to the lis, which was decided upto the Apex Court, against them, were bound by the judgments and decrees. No help, therefore, can be drawn from the aforesaid cases, by the Counsel for the revision-petitioners. The order of the Court below, does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or perversity and, therefore, the same does not warrant any interference, of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. August 10, 2009 ( Sham Sunder ) dinesh Judge Civil Revision No. 2142 of 2009 --13--