C.R.No.2047 of 2010(O&M) #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2047 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.5.2011 Smt Satyawati ….Petitioner Vs. Rajinder Singh and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S Gandhi, Advocate for the respondents. Jaswant Singh, J Decree-holder/petitioner through her General Power of Attorney-Narain Singh has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the impugned order dated 16.3.2009 passed by the learned Executing Court whereby his execution petition has been disposed of by observing that the impugned decree is no more executable. Brief facts of the case are that the decree-holder/petitioner filed a Civil Suit No.RBT 18 dated 18.5.1996 and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 11.6.1993 passed by learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Palwal. Appeal filed against the same was partly allowed and suit of the plaintiff-petitioner (decree holder) was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 19.1.1996 passed by learned District Judge, Faridabad. Decree holder-petitioner filed an execution petition, which was objected by C.R.No.2047 of 2010(O&M) #2# the judgment-debtor/respondents. After hearing both the sides, learned Executing Court disposed of the execution petition as no more executable, hence the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the learned Executing Court has grossly erred in law while passing the impugned order resulting into grave miscarriage of justice. It is further argued that despite expiry of more than a period of 13 years, the decree dated 13.1.1996 has not been executed despite his best efforts and the learned Executing Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not rendering any assistance to execute the decree. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and argued that the order passed by the learned Executing Court is legally justified and does not require interference by this Court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties 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 and decree dated 19.1.1996 reveals that the appeal of the plaintiff-petitioner was partly allowed and the learned District Judge decreed her suit in the following terms: “It is ordered that this appeal is partly allowed and while reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, the suit of plaintiff is decreed to the extent that the defendants are directed to hand over vacant possession of the site measuring 80 sq. yards, forming part of land khasra No.95/24/2, as sketched in the plan forming part of report dated 17.9.89 of local commissioner, after removing the construction, if any, raised C.R.No.2047 of 2010(O&M) #3# thereon. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.” Petitioners filed the execution petition alleging that the defendants had not given the possession of the land in compliance of decree dated 19.1.1996 in spite of many requests. The Judgment debtors filed their objections and submitted as under: “That Shakuntla J.D is exclusive owner of rect No.95 Killa No.23 and D.H has no concern with that. The house of J.D Shakuntla is situated in Killa No.23 but not upon Killa No.24/2. J.D Rajinder has no concern with the said house and other constructions over killa No.23. There is no construction over any portion of Killa No.24/2 of which D.H is exclusive owner. Moreover, this position, now may be ascertained through fresh direction to the person going to execute the judgment and decree under execution, for demarcation at the time of execution of judgment/decree before the Court.” JD-respondents in compliance of the order passed by this Court, have placed on record the subsequent demarcation report dated 26.7.2010, the relevant part of which reads as under: “IV) Conclusion: From the demarcation it was established that the entire house of Smt Shakuntla w/o Rajinder Singh is within Khasra No.95/23 and no part of it falls in Khasra No.95/24. The length of this house is 63' and width is 38'. The applicant has shown a copy of the demarcation report dated 17.9.1989 prepared by Sh. Kesar Dass, a retired Kanungo in which unauthorized possession of Sh. Rajinder Singh etc in Khasra No.95/24/2 measuring 30' x 24' i.e 80 Sq. yard of land has been shown, that place is vacant on the spot. The house of the applicant has been shown in green colour in the site plan.” For the last 15 years, the proceedings for execution of decree dated 19.1.1996 are pending and the learned Executing Court is trying its level best to execute the decree in question and it was for the decree C.R.No.2047 of 2010(O&M) #4# holder/petitioner to point out the assistance required by him from the Executing Court rather he has not raised any objection regarding the execution petition and the observation of the learned Executing Court while passing the impugned order are reproduced hereunder: “It is an admitted case of decree holder that he was always used to be served with the notice of the date of execution of warrant and that in fact he used to be always present at the time when the Executing Officer used to be present in person for executing the impugned warrant. Not only this the court has time and again directed the decree holder to assist the Executing Officer to establish the identity of the property and to get the warrant executed by supplying him by all the relevant documents. As on date the decree holder appeared in person as acknowledged that despite he was present at the time of the said execution but still he had not apparently objected the proceedings of the Executing Officer.” Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, it is apparently clear that the learned Executing Court has rightly passed the impugned order order dated 16.3.2009 while disposing the execution petition. This court does not any illegality or perversity in the same, which warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. May 25, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE