Civil Revision No. 1513 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1513 of 2007 Date of decision : January 29, 2010 Gurcharan Kaur ....Petitioner versus Ajit Singh and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Jatinder Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Pardip Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate, for respondent no. 1 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Gurcharan Kaur has filed the instant revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) assailing order dated 9.2.2007 passed by learned executing court i.e. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Phagwara in execution petition instituted by Ajit Singh respondent no. 1 (decree holder) against Sukhwant Singh respondent no. 2- judgment debtor. Suit filed by respondent no. 1 against respondent no. 2 was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 29.8.1988, thereby holding respondent no. 1 to be in possession of the suit property and therefore, granting decree of permanent injunction in favour of respondent no. 1 Civil Revision No. 1513 of 2007 -2- restraining respondent no. 2 from interfering in the possession of respondent no. 1 over the suit property and dispossessing him therefrom except in due course of law. Respondent no. 1 filed execution petition under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC for execution of the said decree dated 29.8.1988 alleging that subsequent to the passing of the said decree (which was also affirmed in appeal vide judgment and decree dated 31.7.1991) respondent no. 2/JD in violation of the decree had forcibly taken possession of the suit property and thereby failed to obey the decree. Respondent no. 2 in his reply alleged that he had sold the suit property to Gurcharan Kaur (petitioner herein) and also delivered possession thereof to her. Respondent no. 2 claimed that he was exclusive owner of the suit property and respondent no. 1 is neither owner thereof nor entitled to the same. It was also pleaded that Gurcharan Kaur had already filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondent no. 1 Ajit Singh. Learned executing court vide impugned order dated 9.2.2007 held that respondent no. 2/JD in violation of judgment and decree dated 29.8.1988 had taken illegal and forcible possession of the suit property from respondent no. 1 decree holder and handed over possession thereof to Gurcharan Kaur petitioner herein. Accordingly, the executing court held that respondent no. 2/JD had failed to abide by the decree in spite of having sufficient opportunity to obey the same. Consequently, warrant of arrest of respondent no. 1/JD and warrant of possession of the suit property in favour of respondent no. 1/DH was ordered to be issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that suit filed by the petitioner against respondent no. 1 has been decreed vide judgment and decree dated 7.3.1995. However, vide said judgment and Civil Revision No. 1513 of 2007 -3- decree as placed on record, respondent no. 1 herein has been restrained from taking possession of the suit property from the petitioner herein illegally and forcibly but respondent no. 1 would be at liberty to take possession of the suit property in due course of law. Respondent no. 1 is taking possession of the suit property in due course of law by execution of decree dated 29.8.1988 passed in his favour. Respondent no. 1 is taking possession of the suit property through executing court. Consequently, judgment and decree dated 7.3.1995 passed in favour of the petitioner against respondent no. 1 is no bar to the execution of decree dated 29.8.1988 in favour of respondent no. 1. Petitioner herein claims to have purchased the suit property from respondent no. 2/JD by way of some agreement. However, mere agreement to sell in the absence of registered sale deed would not confer title on the petitioner over the suit property. Moreover, the petitioner claims through respondent no. 2/JD and therefore, the petitioner is also bound by decree dated 29.8.1988 passed in favour of respondent no. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on a judgment of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh versus Maya Devi, 1999(1) RCR (Civil) 445 contended that under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC warrant of possession cannot be issued and only detention in civil prison or attachment of property can be ordered. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no. 1/DH has relied upon a judgment of this court in the case of Inder Singh and others versus Dharma and others, 2004(2) L.J.R. 55 wherein it was held that executing court has power and jurisdiction under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC to pass order to restore possession of the suit property to decree holder in case direction of permanent injunction is Civil Revision No. 1513 of 2007 -4- violated by judgment debtor. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 has also placed reliance on a judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Krishnan Namboodiri versus Unnikrishnan Namboodiri, 2005(3) Civil Court Cases, 201 wherein it was held that if decree holder is dispossessed from the suit property in violation of decree of prohibitory injunction executing court even by invoking section 151 CPC order delivery of possession to the decree holder. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. It has been found as a fact by the executing court after recording and appreciating evidence that respondent no. 2/JD in violation of decree dated 29.8.1988 has taken illegal and forcible possession of the suit property from respondent no. 1/DH and further handed over the possession to the petitioner herein and thus, respondent no. 2/JD in spite of having opportunity to obey the decree has failed to obey the same and has rather violated the same. Even otherwise, vide judgment and decree dated 29.8.1988, respondent no. 1/DH was held to be in possession of the suit property. Now admittedly, the petitioner is in possession of the suit property having been delivered the same by respondent no. 2/JD. It is, thus, manifest that in violation of decree dated 29.8.1988, respondent no. 2/JD dispossessed respondent no. 1/DH and thereafter delivered possession of the suit property to the petitioner. The court cannot be rendered helpless by contending that under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC, restoration of possession to the decree holder cannot be ordered even if the decree holder is dispossessed by the judgment debtor in violation of decree of permanent injunction. To accept this contention would amount to giving premium to the judgment debtor who has violated Civil Revision No. 1513 of 2007 -5- the decree with impunity. If this is permitted, the entire system of rule of law and administration of justice would crumble. Decree holder who succeeds in the suit would have no faith in the system of administration of justice if in spite of having succeeded, he cannot reap the fruits of the decree and on the other hand, the judgment debtor would be at liberty to violate the decree with impunity. Such an absurd position or interpretation of law cannot be accepted. It has been rightly held in the case of Inder Singh (supra) that under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC, restoration of possession of the suit property to the decree holder can be ordered if direction of permanent injunction is violated by the judgment debtor. Similarly, in the case of Krishnan Namboodiri (supra) it has been rightly held that the executing court even by invoking section 151 CPC can order delivery of possession to decree holder who is dispossessed in violation of decree of prohibitory injunction. By detention of judgment debtor in civil prison for violation of the decree, the decree holder would not get anything. The decree which has been passed by the court has to be honoured and executed. If the possession of the suit property is not delivered to respondent no. 1 decree holder, it would make a mockery of administration of justice. It is surprising that the petitioner claims that she should be allowed to continue in possession although her predecessor-in-interest respondent no. 2/JD violated the decree passed in favour of respondent no. 1 and after taking possession of the suit property from respondent no. 1 delivered possession thereof to the petitioner. In view of the decree dated 29.8.1988 passed in favour of respondent no. 1 by which the petitioner is also bound as she is claiming through respondent no. 2/JD, petitioner has no right to continue in possession of the suit property and on the other hand, respondent no. 1 Civil Revision No. 1513 of 2007 -6- decree holder has right to restoration of possession over the suit property to him and to continue in possession thereof unless dispossessed therefrom in due course of law. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) January 29, 2010 Judge 'tiwana'