C.R. No.4915 of 2003 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4915 of 2003 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.08.2009 Lakhwinder Singh .....Petitioner Versus Harbans Singh and others ...Respondent Present: Mr. Arun Abrol, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The revision is against an order dismissing an application for disobedience of the decree for injunction filed under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. Admittedly it was a case where the applicant had filed a suit for injunction in respect of 3 marlas comprised in Khasra No.69 situate in Village Kohlian, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. The defendants had preferred an appeal but it was dismissed. That the decree had become final is irrefutable. 2. In the application filed by the plaintiff for enforcement of the decree complaining that the defendants were preventing the plaintiff from peaceful possession, the defence taken by the Judgment Debtors was that the 1st respondent Harbans Singh was himself in possession of the property and evidence had also been let through RW-1 to that effect. It was also the attempt of the C.R. No.4915 of 2003 (O&M) -2- defendants/respondents witness to show that he had constructed a Haveli on the plot and had installed the fodder cutting machine and pucca kholi in the plot. By the fact that respondents, letting in such positive acts of possession is itself a brazen defiance of the decree for injunction. The defendants, who had suffered a decree for injunction and which had become final, cannot be heard to say that 1st defendant is still in possession and that he had put up construction. The very contention of the respondents vindicates the stand of the plaintiff- decree-holder that the decree for injunction is being flouted and the peaceful possession of the plaintiff has been disturbed. The Executing Court had dismissed the application by holding that the defendants- judgment debtors had not been afforded with opportunity to comply with the decree. It is an understandable observation, for the parties, who were contesting the case and who also challenged the decree and failed, cannot be heard to contend that they did not have opportunity to comply with the decree. Such an opportunity is unnecessary. By the very nature of decree, they are bound to conform. 3. The Executing Court was in complete error in rejecting the application. The order of the Executing Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Executing Court to take further process in execution as provided under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. The parties shall appear before the Court on 16.09.2009. 4. The civil revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 19, 2009 Pankaj*