Civil Revision No.2575 of 2009(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2575 of 2009(O & M) Date of Decision:14.05.2010 Ramji Dass Garg .... petitioner Versus Gurnam Kaur & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.R.L.Gupta,Advocate for the petitioner Mr.S.K.Chawla, Advocate for the respondents **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. Through this common judgement, three civil revisions bearing Civil Revision No.2575 of 2009 titled as “Ramji Dass Garg Versus Gurnam Kaur & Ors.”, Civil Revision No.2576 of 2009 titled as “Ramji Dass Garg versus Jugraj Singh & Ors” and Civil Revision No.2577 of 2009 titled as “Ramji Dass Garg versus Mohinder Singh & ors.” are being decided as these three revision petitions have arisen out of one common order dated 24.03.2009 passed by District Judge, Faridkot, whereby he has accepted the appeals and the order dated 30.08.2006 passed by Sh.J.S.Johan, the then Civil Judge(Senior Division), Faridkot, dismissing the objection petitions filed by the objectors/respondents was set aside. As per the averments made in this petition, petitioner filed Civil Suit No.495 of 1991, RT No.678 of 1995 against respondent Nos.5 to 17 restraining them from interfering into his possession over the suit Civil Revision No.2575 of 2009(O & M) 2 property. The said suit was decreed by Sh.B.K.Mehta, then Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridkot vide judgement and decree dated 03.12.1996, whereby the defendants therein were permanently restrained from interfering into the possession of the petitioner over the suit property and they were also directed to remove their iron gate and other articles therefrom. The aforesaid decree has admittedly become final between the parties. In order to execute the decree in question, petitioner filed an execution application. The objections filed by the judgment-debtors on 20.12.2003 were dismissed on merits vide order dated 18.07.2005. The contesting respondents in the present revision petitions filed three different objection petitions on 07.01.2006 reiterating the previous pleas but the aforesaid objections/petitions were dismissed by the Civil Judge(Senior Division), Faridkot, vide order dated 30.08.2006. The contesting respondents filed three civil misc.appeals against the aforesaid order dated 30.08.2006. These appeal were dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court vide order dated 16.12.2006 being not maintainable. Review petition against the aforesaid order was also dismissed vide order dated 15.04.2008. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, objectors filed Civil Revision No.3910, 3911 and 3912 of 2008 before this court. This court vide order dated 16.12.2008 set aside the order dismissing such petition and remanded the case back to the Lower Appellate court to decide the appeals on merit in accordance with the law. The aforesaid appeals have been allowed by the District Judge, Faridkot vide impugned order dated 24.03.2009. It may also be relevant to point out that the objectors are resisting the delivery of possession claiming to be in possession of the suit property since long in their individual capacity and not under the judgement Civil Revision No.2575 of 2009(O & M) 3 debtor. The Lower Appellate Court after considering the respective contentions of the parties held that whether the objector was occupying the property in his own right or he was put up by the judgement debtor cannot be decided except after giving the objector an opportunity to prove his point and consequently set aside the impugned order dated 30.08.2006 and remanded the matter back to the executing court to decide the same afresh after framing necessary issues and giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their claim. Challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in view of the order dated 18.07.2005 whereby objections filed by Sucha Singh(predecessor-in- interest) of the contesting respondents were dismissed vide order dated 18.07.2005 and that the aforesaid order has not been challenged till date by anyone, the present objections filed on behalf of the respondents who are the LRs of earlier objector are not maintainable and hit by the doctrine of res judicata and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that as per the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anwarbi versus Parmod D.A.Joshi 2001(4)RCR(Civil)697, possession of obstructionist cannot be disturbed except in accordance with law and unless and until the rights of objectors are not decided in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, decree holder cannot take possession and the objectors are entitled to retain the same. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, since no proper opportunity was given to them the impugned order cannot be found faulted with. Admittedly, vide judgment and decree dated 03.12.1996, passed by Civil Judge(Junior Division), Faridkot, a decree in favour of the petitioner, whereby respondents therein were permanently restrained from Civil Revision No.2575 of 2009(O & M) 4 interfering into the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and the defendants were also directed to remove their iron gate and other articles therefrom holding that the defendant was not entitled to retain his possession over the suit property against the wishes of the plaintiff. It is also not in dispute that vide order dated 18.07.2005, objections filed by one Sucha Singh(predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents were dismissed being not maintainable. The petitioners were claiming themselves to be the legal representatives of the aforesaid Sucha Singh (since deceased) and were claiming that the suit land was purchased by them vide writing dated 12.03.1990 from Beant Singh, judgment debtor and were put into possession of the suit property. It is their further case that after purchase of the suit property further construction has been raised in the suit property without any objection from the decree holder and, thus, the objectors were in possession of the suit property in their rights and were entitled to protect the same. The executing court vide order dated 30.08.2006 while dismissing the objections observed that previously also similar objections raised by the objectors were dismissed vide detailed order dated 18.07.2005 and the matter was being agitated time and again for no valid cause. Consequently, objections stood dismissed being not maintainable in view of the previous order dated 18.07.2005. While passing the impugned order, the District Judge, Faridkot, has completely ignored the well settled principles of law to the effect that the principles of res judicata are also applicable to the execution proceedings. There is no dispute that the proposition of law as canvassed by the learned counsel for the objector to the effect that third party objections on the ground that the objectors were legally entitled to the possession and were not a party in the suit proceedings were to be decided after granting an opportunity. However, in the present case, similar objections raised by predecessor-in-interest of the objectors have Civil Revision No.2575 of 2009(O & M) 5 already been dismissed vide order dated 18.07.2005 and the same have not been challenged by anyone This Court in the case of Jagjit Singh and ors.versus Surinder Singh and ors. 2009(1)RCR(Civil)370 has held that it was not open to the petitioners to raise the same objections again, once the said objections were rejected and the subsequent petition was barred on the principles of res judicata. Moreover, in the present case, objectors have failed to show their legal right to protect their possession as the same cannot be held to be lawful on the basis of a writing during the pendency of the suit. This Court in the case of Jaswant Singh vs.Ralla Singh & ors.2005(3)RCR(Civil)109 has held that objections of subsequent vendor during litigation are not to be adjudicated like a civil suit but have to be summarily disposed of. Thus, in view of the aforesaid settled principles of law, I find considerable merit in these petitions. The objection petitions filed by the contesting respondents are hit by the principles of res judicata as similar objections filed by Sucha Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the objectors were dismissed vide order dated 18.07.2005 which have become final. Consequently, these revision petitions are allowed and the impugned order dated 24.03.2009 is set aside and the order passed by the executing court dated 30.08.2006 is sustained. The parties through their counsel are directed to be present before the executing court for further proceedings. Civil Revision stands disposed of. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 14.05.2010 neenu