IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 1733 of 2002 DATE OF DECISION : 12.08.2011 Shanti Devi .... PETITIONER Versus Parkash alias Om Parkash and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. Shanti Devi (decree holder) has filed the instant revision petition against the order dated 5.2.2002, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhajjar, whereby the execution application, filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC was dismissed, while coming the conclusion that the judgment debtors (respondents herein) had not violated the decree of injunction, passed against them. In the present case, the petitioner-decree holder filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents-judgment debtors from blocking the outlet, through which rainy water was being discharged. The said suit was decreed on 17.1.1987 and the respondents-judgment debtors were restrained from blocking the outlet in question. Later on, the petitioner-decree holder filed execution application, alleging that the CR No. 1733 of 2002 -2- respondents have obstructed the outlet by raising construction, due to which the dirty water stood accumulated at the spot. During the execution proceedings, a local commissioner was appointed, who submitted his report. On perusal of the said report, it has been found by the Executing Court that the outlet was not blocked by the respondents-judgment debtors and between the said outlet and wall of the room constructed by the respondents-judgment debtors on their own land, the dirty water stood accumulated. It was the case of the petitioner-decree holder that the respondents-judgment debtors had constructed the room after encroaching upon the gali, due to which there was no free flow of dirty water, which had been accumulated there. Thus, virtually by raising construction, the respondents-judgment debtors had closed the outlet. During the course of hearing, an offer was made to the petitioner-decree holder to construct a cemented pucca drain along with the wall of the room of the respondents- judgment debtors to give a proper outlet to the already accumulated water. It was assured by the respondents-judgment debtors that they will not cause any hindrance or obstruction in the process of construction of the said cemented pucca drain, but the said offer was not accepted by the petitioner- decree holder and she insisted that the outlet be provided to the already accumulated water only through the room of the respondents-judgment debtors, which was the way of flow of dirty water prior to the construction. About the said attitude of the petitioner-decree holder, the Executing Court made the following observations : CR No. 1733 of 2002 -3- “This attitude of the DH in the considered view of this court is not only against the very spirit of the decree which envisaged for providing a proper outlet to the discharge of the dirty water from the plaintiff's house but also this court has the least hesitation to observe that the attitude aforesaid of the DH is deplorable as the DH instead of having concern to provide a proper outlet to the accumulated water through the route as prescribed by this court, is primarily concerned with spoiling the user of the room already constructed by the JDs on their own land or in the demolition of the said room. Therefore, this court hereby condemns the aforesaid attitude of the DH in strongest possible words.” After making the aforesaid observations, the Executing Court came to the conclusion that actually the prohibitory decree was only not to close the outlet, which actually has not been closed. Thus, there is no violation of the decree and the respondents-judgment debtors had not attempted to block the outlet, shown in the original plan at point L and at point A in the site plan submitted with the report of the local commissioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order. It is admitted position that the outlet Mark A has not been closed. It was the decree passed in favour of the petitioner-decree holder. In between the outlet and the wall of the room of the respondents-judgment debtors, which was subsequently constructed on their own land, there is sufficient space, from where the rainy water can flow. The only requirement is to construct the pucca drain towards the said space. The petitioner-decree CR No. 1733 of 2002 -4- holder was given offer to raise such construction, which she has not accepted. It appears that the petitioner-decree holder is fighting just for her ego. She is not interested in amicable settlement of the small issue. In that light, the Executing Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the decree has not been violated by the respondents-judgment debtors and the reasonable offer has not been accepted by the petitioner. Consequently, the execution application, filed by the petitioner-decree holder has been dismissed. I do not find any illegality in the said order. No merits. Dismissed. August 12, 2011 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE