Civil Revision No.2106 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2106 of 2010 Date of Decision:12.09.2011 Manjit Kaur and another ......Petitioners Versus Darshan Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Animesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Amandeep Sibia, Advocate, for the respondent. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The contour of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record is that, the suit for a decree of permanent injunction filed by Darshan Singh son of Banta Singh-respondent-plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”), restraining Manjit Kaur wife of Sarup Singh-petitioner No.1-defendant (for short “the defendant”), from interfering in his peaceful possession over the property in dispute, was decreed by the trial Court, by virtue of judgment and decree dated 21.07.2006(Annexure P-1). 2. Although, the plaintiff filed the suit only against Manjit Kaur- defendant, but he moved an application(Annexure P-2) under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC, adding the names of Sarup Singh son of Dhan Singh and Major Singh son of Sarup Singh as respondents (who were not the party to the main suit). The defendant refuted the claim of the plaintiff and filed the reply(Annexure P-4) to the application in this regard. 3. The Executing Court, without application of mind, passed the Civil Revision No.2106 of 2010 2 following cryptic impugned order dated 16.09.2008(Annexure P-3) and issued warrant of attachment in a very routine fashion:- “Suit dismissed against JD No.3. Objection not filed. Let the warrant of attachment be issued for 23.10.08.” 4. The application(Annexure P-5) filed by the defendant for recalling the warrant of attachment, was dismissed as well by the Executing Court, by virtue of impugned order dated 06.11.2009(Annexure P-6). 5. Aggrieved by the decisions(Annexures P-3 and P-6) of the Executing Court, the petitioners preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the impugned orders(Annexures P-3 and P-6) cannot legally be maintained. 7. As is evident from the record that, the plaintiff has filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction only against Manjit Kaur-defendant. But he has added two additional names of Sarup Singh and Major Singh as respondents, in the application under Order Order 21 Rule 32 CPC (who were not the party to the main suit). The Executing Court issued warrant of attachment in a very casual manner and dismissed the application(Annexure P-5) of the petitioner-defendant, for recalling the warrant of attachment, vide impugned order(Annexure P-6). 8. As is clear from the impugned orders that, the main ground which appears to have been weighed with the Executing Court was that, the warrants were issued on 16.09.2008 in a judicious manner and the application(Annexure P- 5) was filed at a very belated stage. Here to me, the Executing Court has slipped into a deep legal error in this relevant connection. 9. As indicated earlier that, in the wake of application of the plaintiff, the Executing Court has issued warrant of attachment in a very casual fashion, by way of impugned order dated 16.09.2008(Annexure P-3). Order 21 Rule 32 CPC Civil Revision No.2106 of 2010 3 postulates that, where the party against whom a decree for an injunction has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has willfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both. 10. A conjoint and meaningful reading of this provision would reveal that, the Executing Court was required to record a definite finding that (i) the decree has been passed against the defendants, (ii) they had an opportunity of obeying the decree and (iii) they have willfully failed to obey it. Unless and until, the indicated essential ingredients are complete, warrant of attachment cannot legally be issued in a routine fashion, as has been done by the Executing Court in the present case. 11. What is not disputed here is that, even added respondents Sarup Singh and Major Singh were not the party to the main suit and they have already filed the objection-petition in this relevant behalf. Therefore, to me, the Executing Court ought to have decided their objections and recorded the essential finding, as contemplated under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC, before issuance of warrant of attachment. The impugned orders of the Executing Court must be fair, clear, reasonable and in the interest of justice and fair play. Every such order must be confined and structured by rational and relevant material on record. In the instant case, no such cogent grounds have been recorded by the Executing Court in this respect. 12. Exhibiting the importance of passing speaking and reasoned order, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank V. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 240 has held(para 8) as under:- “The purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in S.N.Mukherjee V. Union of India, is that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi-judicial authorities. Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a person know whether the authority has applied its Civil Revision No.2106 of 2010 4 mind or not? Also, giving of reasons minimizes the chances of arbitrariness. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in a judicial or quasi- judicial order, even if it is an order of affirmation.” 13. Therefore, to me, the impugned orders of the Executing Court cannot legally be maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 14. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of subsequent hearing of the matter, the instant revision petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned orders(Annexures P-3 and P-6) are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Executing Court, to decide the application of the plaintiff under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC and objection-petition filed by the defendant-JDs and then to pass an appropriate order, as warranted by the situation and in accordance with law. 15. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Executing Court on 30.11.2011. 16. Needless to mention that, nothing recorded hereinabove would reflect, on the merits of the case, in any manner, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the present revision petition only. September 12, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No