Jagat Singh and others vs Sanjay Kumar and others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the executing Court dated 15-4-1987 whereby the objections filed on behalf of the sons of the judgment debtor i.e. the Petitioners were dismissed.

In the reply filed on behalf of the Respondents-decree holders, a preliminary objection has been raised that no case has been made out for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and secondly, the Petitioners have no locus standi to maintain the present petition.

Though I find force in the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Respondent-decree holders, however, on merits also I do not find any force in this petition The decree holders arc executing the decree dated 2-9-1965 which was passed against the father of the Petitioners i.e. Chunna Lal. He filed the objections earlier, which were dismissed vide order dated 31-10-1983. Not only that even he was allowed compensation for the construction raised by him on the suit land. Thus from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite evident that the present objection petition has been filed by the Petitioners who are sons of the judgment debtors just to delay the execution proceedings.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners stated that as a matter of fact his real grievance that the decree holder is only entitled to have possession of 8 marlas of land and not of the entire land, as the decree holder is only claiming 8 marlas of land in his execution application.

It is not disputed that the decree was for delivery of possession of the land measuring 2 Bighas and 3 Biswas in Khasra No. 1600, later on converted into 10 Kanals 14 Manias in Khasra No. 51 of rectangle No. 164. According to the Petitioners, for the remaining land possession has already been taken by the decree holder. However, if the possession for the remaining land has already been taken by the decree holder, there is no fun in getting the delivery of possession for the second time. However, if the possession was not taken earlier he is entitled to get possession of the remaining land as well.

Consequently this petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The costs are assessed at Rs. 1,000/- as these are the delaying tactics by the Petitioners.