Harbans Kaur vs Sanjogta and ors.

J.V. Gupta, J.

This petition is directed against the order of the Executing Court dated 7.3.1988 whereby the second objection petition filed by the judgmentdebtor was dismissed.

Shrimati Snajogta, claiming herself to be the widow of Lachhman Singh along with her two daughters. Shakuntala and Gulshan Bala filed a suit against Shrimati Harbans Kaur and some other persons who were in possession as tenants. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 17.1.1977 and the same was maintained up to the High Court in second appeal which was dismissed on 15.3.1984. Thereafter, the decreeholders filed execution application in which the judgmentdebtor Harbans Kaur filed certain objections under Section 47. The said objections were dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated 11.4.1985. However, subsequently, the execution application was dismissed in default when neither of the party appeared on 7.4.1986. The very next day the decreeholder moved an application on 8.4.1986 for the restoration of the execution application. The same was contested on behalf of the judgmentdebtor and meanwhile the decreeholder filed a fresh execution application on 24.3.1987 thereby the application for restoration was dismissed as withdrawn. The judgmentdebtor Shrimati Harbans Kaur filed objection petition in the fresh execution application. The said objection petition was dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated 7.12.1987, copy of which has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure P/5. While passing that order, the learned counsel for the parties agreed for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to determine the site, possession of which was to be delivered to the decreeholders and the portion which was to be left with the judgmentdebtor was ordered. However, later on, the judgmentdebtor moved an application dated 17.12.1987, copy filed vide Annexure P/6 that the said order dated 7.12.1987 be cancelled as according to the averments made therein, it was wrongly stated in the order that the counsel for the parties agreed for appointment of a Local Commissioner.

Now in the fresh execution application, the same objections were again filed by the judgmentdebtor which have been dismissed by the Executing Court with the observation "The objections too are therefore untenable in the eyes of law. To my mind the various objections taken by objector Harbans Kaur are vexatious, unmaintainable, without any force and simply with a view to delay the execution application in respect of a decree pertaining to the year 1977 and confirmed in 1984 by the Hon''ble High Court."

Learned counsel for the judgment debtor petitioner submitted that the objection petition filed in the year 1985 along with written arguments have not been decided and, therefore, the view taken by the Executing Court was wrong and illegal. According to the learned counsel, even the objections raised in the written arguments filed by the judgmentdebtor were entitled to be disposed of in accordance with law.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the decreeholderrespondent submitted that after the impugned order was passed on 7.3.1988, the same day, the Court passed a separate order which is to the following effect :

"Vide separate detailed order of even date application for review of order dated 7.12.1987, regarding the appointment of a Local Commissioner, objection petition filed by the judgmentdebtor and the objection petition filed by Puran Singh stands dismissed. A direction be issued to the Local Commissioner to carry out the measurement as per my order dated 7.12.1987 and submit his report on 22.3.1988. There is another application filed by the decreeholder seeking that the execution should be pressed against Puran Singh as surety under Section 145, C.P.C. This application is ordered to be taken up on 22.3.1988 for consideration as the counsel for the parties have not supplied books.

Thus, argued the learned counsel, that since the above said order has not been challenged, it has become final between the parties and the revision petition was liable to be dismissed. Moreover, there was nothing wrong or illegal in the impugned order as to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. Rather, that was an order declined to review the earlier order dated 7.12.1987 and, therefore, no revision petition as such was maintainable against an order declined to review the earlier order.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that no revision petition is maintainable against the impugned order since it was an order declining to review the earlier order dated 7.12.1987. No revision petition is maintainable against such an order declining to review the earlier order. Moreover, the above said order dated 7.3.1988 passed subsequent to the impugned order has not been challenged and on that account also, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.

The parties have been directed to appear in the Executing Court on 8.11.1989 for further proceedings.