C.R.No.378 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.378 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.10.2011 Lashmi ....Petitioner Versus Mohinder Pal and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Onkar Rai, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH, J C.M.No.25440-CII of 2011 Application is allowed. Annexures P.3 and P.4 are taken on record. C.R.No.378 of 2011 By filing the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, plaintiff-petitioner has laid challenge to the impugned judgment dated 14.6.2010 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Phillaur whereby her application filed under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC for execution of judgment and decree dated 19.8.2004 has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a Civil Suit No.201 of 1999 against the defendant-respondent Nos.1 & 2 (JDs) for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering into the peaceful possession of the house shown in red color in the site plan marked as ABCDEF as described in the head note of the plaint. Upon notice, the defendants appeared and contested the suit by filing written C.R.No.378 of 2011 #2# statement. The said suit was decreed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Phillaur vide judgment dated 19.8.2004. Thereafter, an application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC was filed for enforcement of abovesaid judgment and decree. Upon notice, the same was opposed by filing separate replies by defendant/respondent Nos.1 & 2 (JDs) and respondent Nos.3 & 4 respectively. After hearing both the sides, the execution application was dismissed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Phillaur vide judgment dated 14.6.2010, hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners argues that the impugned judgment is wholly erroneous and not sustainable in view of the settled preposition of law that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and it is obligatory upon it to execute the same it is. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition and the same deserves dismissal. A perusal of the impugned judgment dated 14.6.2010 clearly reveals that from the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the learned Executing Court on 12.8.2006: “1. Whether the JD has violated the Judgment and decree dated 19.8.2004 as alleged?OPP 2. Relief.” While deciding issue No.1, learned Executing Court categorically recorded a finding that the statement of applicant is not worthy of credence, not reliable and believable. It has further been C.R.No.378 of 2011 #3# observed that respondent Nos.3 & 4 have purchased the house in dispute on 13.9.2000 vide registered sale deed dated Ex.D1 from defendant/respondent Nos.1 & 2 (JDs) and since then they are in possession of house in dispute and have proved the electricity bills etc. Even in the reply (P.4) filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 & 4 also, it was categorically submitted that respondent Nos.1 & 2 had sold the house in dispute to respondent Nos.3 & 4 vide registered sale deed dated 13.9.2000 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Nur Mahal vide Vasika No.1132 and possession was taken at the same time from respondent Nos.1 & 2. It has also been specifically submitted that respondent Nos.3 & 4 are not in the knowledge of Civil Suit No.201 of 1999 as also the judgment and decree dated 19.8.2004 as the same is result of fraud and misrepresentation. They have further submitted that the alleged judgment and decree is in connivance of the petitioner with respondent Nos.1 & 2 and therefore, respondent Nos.3 & 4 are not bound by the decree as they were never party to the same nor served at any point of time. There is no quarrel with the legal preposition raised by learned counsel for the petitioner but the same is not helpful to the petitioner in view of the fact that the house in dispute has already been sold out to respondent Nos.3 & 4 by way of registered sale deed executed by defendant-respondent Nos.1 & 2, who were handed over the possession prior to the decree dated 19.8.2004, therefore, there was no occasion for respondent Nos.3 & 4 to disobey the aforesaid C.R.No.378 of 2011 #4# judgment and decree. Keeping in view the specific stand taken by respondent Nos.3 & 4, the learned Executing Court has rightly dismissed the execution petition. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. October 20, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE