Ascharaj Lal vs Dwarka Dass

G.C. Garg, J.—This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 272''to 280 of 1993, the questions of law and fact being common in all the petitions.

On notice of motion having been issued, plaintiff-respondents put in appearance.

Facts are being taken from Civil Revision 272 of 1993. Dwarka Dass and others filed a suit for possession of property measuring 2B''.6"x9'' with specific boundaries as detailed in the plaint and for recovery of damages for use and occupation of the said properly from March 11, 1982 to March 10, 1985. The suit was decreed. After due course of time, the decree passed by the trial Court was affirmed upto the High Court. The plaintiffs filed execution application to which the judgment debtors raised objections. The executing Court by its order dated April 6, 1992 dismissed the objection petition filed by the objector-judgment debtor. Aggrieved by this order, the judgment- debtor has filed the present revision petition.

Contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the land in dispute is not a part and parcel of Khasra No. 175 (7-11) and even if it is a part of the suit land, the decree holders are not entitled to dispossess him as the decree holders are not the exclusive owners of any specific portion of the said Khasra No. Learned Counsel went on to contend that the objector is in possession of the property since 1947 and has been paying lease money to the Rehabilitation Department and is a tenant of the said department of a very small portion owned by the said department. Learned Counsel in support of his contention placed reliance on Sadhu Vs. Gram Panchayat of village Akalian, 1990 P.L.J. 108 and Sant Ram Vs. Khem Chand 1990 P.L.J. 498.

On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the decree holders placed strong reliance on Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board and another V. Pukhraj Singh and another, 1990 (1) RLR 433 and Ram Tikaya Chawla V. Tek Chand and another, 1990 (1) RLR 395.

After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the plaint, written statement and the judgment rendered by the trial Court, execution of which has been sought, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the revision petition and the same deserves to the dismissed. Suit of the plaintiff was decreed for a specific portion, boundaries of which had been fully detailed in the plaint. If the defendant had any objection that the property, the possession of which was . sought in the suit, is not a part of Khasra No. 175 or that the plaintiffs were not entitled to possession of any specific portion as detailed in the plaint, he was within his rights to raise all possible objections in the written statement and get the same settled by producing appropriate evidence. In the present case, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed for a specific portion and the judgment debtor cannot now be permitted to go beyond the decree granted by the trial Court which is clear and unambiguous. It is not shown as to how the decree passed by the trial Court is void. The objection with regard to the decree being void and non-existent can always be raised when it is given effect to, may be in the executing Court. But in them present case nothing has been shown even prima facie, that the decree is void or was passed at the back of the objector. Once that is so, it cannot be said that the objections filed by the judgment-debtor ought to have been tried as a suit by framing issues and permitting the objector to lead evidence to prove the content on raised. As already noticed, all pleas now sought to be taken up by way of objection petition could have been raised by the objector by way defence in the main suit. Once it is found that the pleas now sought to be raised in the objection petition, were not raised in the written statement and not put to trial in the main suit, such pleas cannot be permitted to be raised in the execution proceedings as it will amount to nothing but the re-opening of the controversy which has already been settled between the parties. If it had been even prima facie shown that the decree was void and thus, not executable, an issue could have been framed to that effect but not on the merits of the controversy already settled. It may at the cost of repetition be observed that in the present case, a mere reading of the decree reveals that the suit for possession of the property with specific boundaries was decreed, which decree is being executed. The petitioner, in my view, cannot be permitted to raise objections which could have been raised in the suit itself. Provisions of Explanation IV of Section 11 of the CPC are clearly attracted to the facts of the present case. Site plan filed by the decree-holders was never challenged. There is thus, no illegality in the order of the executing Court dismissing the objection petition. It is clearly held in the Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board and another V. Pukhraj Singh and another. 1990 (1) RLR 433, that the pleas very much available to the judgment debtors to be raised in the suit, are not available to be taken in execution proceedings. Consequently, these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. No costs.