CR No.5012 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5012 of 2002 Date of decision: September 09, 2009 Naresh Pal …..PETITIONER Versus Smt Jaspal Kaur and others …..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT:Mr C.B.Goel, Advocate Mr M.S.Kang, Advocate T.P.S.MANN, J. Smt Jaspal Kaur-respondent No.1 filed a suit against Rakesh Kumar and Harbans Lal, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, for possession of Taur, measuring 4 marlas, marked ABCDEF, as shown in red colour in the site plan, which was part of Khasra Nos.172 (0-5) and 173 (0-7). The suit was decreed by Civil Judge (Jr Division), Dasuya vide judgment dated 8.12.2000, in view of the statement made by Rakesh Kumar-respondent No.2 that he alongwith Harbans Lal- respondent No.3 had compromised with Jaspal Kaur-respondent No.1 in writing on 4.11.1999, in which they had received CR No.5012 of 2002 -2- Rs.60,000/- in cash. It was further stated that a decree dated 13.10.1993 had already been passed by the trial Court with regard to the suit property against their father, namely, Bishesher Nath and therefore, the present suit be decreed as per the compromise. Smt. Jaspal Kaur through her counsel, admitted the aforementioned statement made by Rakesh Kumar-respondent No.2 as correct, and, as stated above, the suit was decreed on 8.12.2000. Smt. Jaspal Kaur then applied for execution of the decree dated 8.12.2000. The present petitioner, namely, Naresh Pal filed his objections on the ground that the decree dated 8.12.2000 was nullity as he was not party to the same. He was in possession of the suit property being tenant, and, therefore, the decree could not be executed against him. He had filed a suit for permanent injunction against his landlord i.e. Rakesh Kumar, in which both the parties had been directed to maintain status quo regarding possession. The objections submitted by Naresh Pal were sought to be countered by the decree holder on the ground that the filing of the suit by objector against the judgment debtor did not affect her right to execute the decree against the objector as well. The judgment debtor was not the tenant over the suit property, when the decree holder earlier filed suit No.35 of 1989, which was decreed on 13.10.1993, in which father of CR No.5012 of 2002 -3- Rakesh Kumar and Harbans Lal was not held to be owner of any part of the suit land. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the executing Court dismissed the objections submitted by the petitioner. Hence, he is now before this Court by way of present revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 115 CPC for setting aside the order of the executing Court passed on 16.9.2002. It was civil suit No.1177 of 2000, filed by Naresh Pal-present petitioner against Rakesh Kumar, wherein he sought permanent injunction so as to restrain the defendant or his agents from forcibly interferring and causing obstruction in his business, except in due course of law. Though vide order dated 6.12.2000 passed by the trial Court while deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, read-with Section 151 CPC, the parties were directed to maintain status- quo qua possession, yet the order was described as one to operate only against the defendant therein, meaning thereby that it was not to operate against anyone else other than Rakesh Kumar. The concluding portion of the order dated 6.12.2000 is reproduced here-below: “----Therefore, it is fit case where both the parties should be directed to maintain status quo qua CR No.5012 of 2002 -4- possession. Thus, the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, read-with Section 151 CPC stand decided. This order of mine shall have no bearings on the merits of this case. This order of mine will operate only against the present defendant of this suit and this would be order in personam.” The aforementioned civil suit No.1177 of 2000 was dismissed in default under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC vide order dated 20.3.2003 passed by Civil Judge (Jr Division), Dasuya. The said order is reproduced here-below: “None has turned up on behalf of the plaintiff despite calling the case for several times to lead evidence as per previous order. It is 3.15 PM. As such, suit of the plaintiff is dismissed in default under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC. File be consigned to the record room, Hoshiarpur.” It appears that the order dated 20.3.2003 passed in the aforesaid civil suit was recalled by the trial Court, as the suit once again came up for hearing before Civil Judge (Jr Division), Dasuya on 1.3.2005, when the petitioner made statement that he did not want to proceed with the said suit as he had already filed the present revision before this Court. The said statement is re- produced here-below: “Stated that I have filed Civil Revision No.5012/2002 titled as Naresh Pal vs. Jaspal Kaur CR No.5012 of 2002 -5- in the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana Chandigarh which was admitted by the Hon'ble High Court on 5.8.2004. The subject matter/title of that revision and subject matter/title of the present suit is same, therefore, until and unless, the said revision petition is decided by the Hon'ble High Court so I do not want to proceed with the present suit. Whenever needed I will got revive the present suit.” On 19.3.2005, the file of the civil suit was taken up by Civil Judge (Jr Division), Dasuya and in view of the statement made by the petitioner earlier on 1.3.2005, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn. The order dated 19.3.2005 is also reproduced here-below: “Plaintiff has made a separate statement on 1.3.2005 that he has filed civil revision No.5012/2002 titled as Naresh Pal Vs. Jaspal Kaur in the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh which was admitted by the Hon'ble High Court on 5.8.2004. The subject matter/title of that revision and subject matter/title of the present suit is same, therefore, until and unless, the said revision petition is decided by the Hon’ble High Court so he do not want to proceed with the present suit. Whenever needed he will got revive the present suit. In view of the statement of the plaintiff, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed as withdrawn. File be consigned to the Judicial Record Room, Hoshiarpur.” CR No.5012 of 2002 -6- As is apparent from para-3 of the objections submitted by the petitioner before the executing Court, the main plea set up by him to oppose his dispossession was that he had already filed suit for permanent injunction in which an order of status quo stood passed against his landlord. Para-3 of the objections is reproduced here below: “The objector/applicant is tenant over the shop which is part and parcel of decree. The objector has filed suit for permanent injunction against his landlord in the court of learned Sh.R.K.Gupta, PCS, Civil Judge, Dasuya in which the Honourable Court was pleased to grant order of status-quo against the landlord. Copy of the same order is attached with this application/objections.” In para-4 of the objections, it was also mentioned by the petitioner that till the time there was proper and correct adjudication of his suit, the execution in question be stayed. However, after obtaining an interim order against his dispossession in the present revision, the petitioner has since withdrawn civil suit No.1177 of 2000, after making statement dated 1.3.2005 and consequently, order passed by the trial Court on its basis on 19.3.2005, little realizing that it was because of the interim order passed in his suit that this Court had stayed his dispossession. Even otherwise, in the ad-interim order dated CR No.5012 of 2002 -7- 6.12.2000 obtained by the petitioner in his suit filed against Rakesh Kumar, it was clearly observed by the trial Court that it would operate only against the defendant therein i.e. Rakesh Kumar and that it would be an order in personam. Such an order could not, thus, operate against Jaspal Kaur, who had obtained a decree dated 8.12.2000 for possession of the Taur, measuring 4 marlas. It may also be noticed that the objector did not place anything on the record to establish that he was tenant under Rakesh Kumar and even in the suit filed by him against Rakesh Kumar, he did not implead the decree holder as a party. If the objector is claiming possession over the suit property under the Judgement Debtors, he would be bound by the decree passed against them. In view of the above, there is no merit in the revision, which is, therefore, dismissed. September 09, 2009. (T.P.S.MANN) Pds. JUDGE