Bagicha Singh vs Udasi Dharamshala

L.N. Mittal, J.—Judgment Debtor (JD) Bagicha Singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 4.4.2009 Annexure P/4 passed by the executing court thereby dismissing objections filed by way of reply Annexure P/3 by JD-petitioner. It is undisputed that compromise decree dated 10.9.1988 was passed in favour of respondent-decree holder (DH) Udasi Dharamsala against the petitioner-JD for possession of 2 kanals 16 marlas land out of which petitioner was to retain 1 kanal land for six years as licencee by paying Rs. 100/- per annum as licence fee and on expiry of six years, the petitioner was to surrender possession of said 1 kanal land also in favour of DH.

The petitioner failed to surrender possession of the land. Thereupon, respondent DH filed execution petition Annexure P/2 seeking execution of the decree by delivering possession of the suit land and also recovery of arrears of licence fee.

JD-petitioner by filing reply Annexure P/3 opposed the execution petition and pleaded that compromise dated 13.3.1994 Annexure P/1 was effected between the parties, pursuant to which the petitioner paid Rs. 15,000/- to the respondent-DH and accordingly, the petitioner became owner in possession of the disputed 1 kanal land and therefore, the decree is not executable.

Learned executing court vide impugned order Annexure P/4 has dismissed the objections taken by the JD-petitioner in his reply Annexure P/3 and has ordered issuance of warrant of possession of the disputed land. Feeling aggrieved, JD has filed this revision petition to challenge the said order.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner reiterated that in view of compromise Annexure P/1 effected between the parties subsequent to the decree dated 10.9.1988 sought to be executed, the petitioner has become owner in possession of the disputed land measuring 1 kanal and therefore, the decree qua said land is in-executable. The aforesaid contention is completely frivolous and meritless and is unsustainable. Perusal of alleged compromise Annexure P/1 reveals that according to compromise, some case was pending between the parties in the court of Senior Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur when this compromise was arrived at on 13.3.1994. However, no lis was admittedly pending between the parties relating to the disputed land on the said date. Suit had been decided on the basis compromise on 10.9.1988 whereas execution petition Annexure P/2 was instituted on 2.9.2000. Thus, the very opening part of the alleged compromise is patently false.

The alleged compromise Annexure P/1 was executed between Gurbaksh Singh @ Hari Parkash and Hari Pal and Ramesh Chander Sood, Receiver of Dharamshala on the one hand and the JD-petitioner Bagicha Singh on the other hand. However, admittedly the alleged compromise has not been signed by Ramesh Chander Sood, Receiver of DH-respondent Dharamshala. Thus, he was not party to the alleged compromise. Gurbaksh Singh and Hari Pal who allegedly entered into alleged compromise had no authority to enter into same on behalf of DH-respondent Dharamshala. They were not party to the suit or the decree. Decree was passed in the suit filed by Ramesh Chander Sood, Advocate as Receiver of Udasi Dharamshala. The execution petition has been instituted by Udasi Dharamshala through its Mahant Ranbir Dass. However, neither Ramesh Chander Sood, the then Receiver of Dharamshala nor Mahant Ranbir Dass, Mahant of DH-Dharamshala is party to the alleged compromise Annexure P/1. Consequently, the said compromise has no bearing on the rights of the DH-respondent. It may be added that Ramesh Chander Sood as Receiver of the Dharamshala could not have entered into compromise without obtaining permission from the court which appointed him as Receiver. Admittedly, no such permission was sought for effecting alleged compromise.

In the aforesaid circumstances, even taking the version of JD-petitioner at face value that alleged compromise Annexure P/1 had been entered into, it cannot be said that the decree has become inexecutable on account of alleged compromise Annexure P/1 because DH-respondent is not party to the said compromise. In these circumstances, issues were not required to be framed on the plea of the JD regarding alleged compromise Annexure P/1 and therefore, contention of counsel for the petitioner that impugned order has been passed without framing of issues and recording evidence cannot be accepted to set aside the impugned order.

It is, thus, apparent that the impugned order of the executing court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is not only meritless but is also completely frivolous.

Before parting with the order, it has to be noticed that by filing frivolous objections by way of reply and by filing this frivolous revision petition and obtaining interim stay of dispossession, the petitioner has delayed the delivery of possession of the disputed land to DH-respondent by almost 13 years after the filing of the execution petition on 02.9.2000. According to compromise decree dated 10.9.1988, JD had to surrender possession of the disputed land on expiry of 6 years i.e. upto 10.9.1994. Since then there has been delay of almost 19 years. Consequently, JD-petitioner is liable to be saddled with exemplary costs for delaying the execution petition for such inordinately long period. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to respondent in the executing court failing which the amount shall be recovered by the executing court in accordance with law. The petitioner is also directed to surrender possession of the disputed land immediately to DH. The executing court is directed to expedite the delivery of possession of the disputed land to DH in accordance with law.