C.R. No. 7270 of 2009 -1- ***** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 7270 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 15.07.2010 Lashkar Singh .......... Petitioner Versus Waryama & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. R.K.Kapila, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.8.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Hoshiarpur vide which the application moved by the petitioner for enforcement of the injunction order by invoking the provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stands dismissed. The petitioner had filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering or raising construction over the land bearing khasra Nos. 37, 39 and 53 to 55, with a further prayer for directing the respondents to remove the superstructure / construction, if any, raised during the pendency of the suit. The suit filed by the petitioner was decreed, in pursuance to the compromise entered into between the parties. The case set up by the petitioner was, that the respondents in violation of the decree of injunction raised C.R. No. 7270 of 2009 -2- ***** construction over the disputed property, thus, they were liable to be prosecuted under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner initially failed to appear in the witness box and his application was dismissed. The petitioner preferred an appeal. The case was remanded back to the learned trial Court with an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence. After the remand the petitioner filed an affidavit in support of the allegations made in the application for execution of the decree. In spite of the opportunity given he was not subjected to any cross-examination. The petitioner in support of the execution application also placed reliance on the reports of the two Local Commissioners, who have visited the spot to find out the violation of the injunction order. After reading the reports, the learned executing court recorded the following finding :- “..........From his report, I have not gathered any such impression that he has stated that the defendants / respondents had made encroachment in Taur No. 37 and 39 as alleged by the applicant or they had made any encroachment in joint possession, rather his report reveals that it is Lashkar Singh who is in unauthorized possession in Khasra no. 56-min. IN Naksha Taffavat prepared by the Local Commissioner, he stated that in khasra numbers 53-min and 54-min, there is un-authorised possession of Mushtarka Malkaan and Khasra no. 37-Min is shown to C.R. No. 7270 of 2009 -3- ***** be in unauthorized possession of Panchayat Deh (Rasta). So there is worth no evidence on the file on the basis of which it can be said that the applicant has proved this fact that defendants / respondents had violated the judgment and decree dated 01.12.1987. It was in view of the finding recorded above, the learned executing Court came to the conclusion, that the petitioner was unable to prove the violation of the decree by the respondents, as reports of the Local Commissioners did not show any encroachment or construction on the suit land. Consequently, dismissed the application. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges, the impugned order by contending, that the order passed by the learned executing Court cannot be sustained, as the statement of the petitioner in support of his application went unrebutted, which proved the factum of violation of the injunction order. This plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted, for the reason, that beside his oral evidence, the petitioner chose to get two Local Commissioner appointed, who submitted their reports. The Local Commissioners were appointed at the request of the petitioner, therefore, the reports given by both the Local Commissioners cannot be disputed by the petitioner, specially when petitioner relied on these reports in support of his case. In view of the reports referred to above, the learned executing Court, was right in holding that the petitioner was unable to C.R. No. 7270 of 2009 -4- ***** prove that there was any violation of the injunction, so as to proceed against judgment debtors under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil procedure. No merit. Dismissed. 15.07.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE