Kuldip Singh and Others vs Mahesh and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Judgment debtors (JDs) have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 06.12.2005 passed by the executing Court thereby dismissing objection-petition filed by the petitioners in execution proceedings launched by respondents/decree holders (DHs). Suit filed by respondents against petitioners was decreed for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering in possession of the respondents over the suit land. Respondents/DHs filed execution petition alleging that JDs have taken illegal possession of the suit land during pendency of their first appeal which has since been dismissed. Accordingly, decree holders sought delivery of possession of the suit land.

JDs filed objections/reply alleging that their regular second appeal was pending in this Court. It was also pleaded that JDs are owners in possession of the suit land. It was denied that JDs have taken illegal possession of the suit land during pendency of appeal. Decree holders never remained in possession of the suit land.

Learned executing Court vide impugned order dated 06.12.2005 dismissed the objection petition filed by the JDs. Feeling aggrieved, JDs have filed this revision petition to assail the said order.

None appeared for the petitioners on 31.05.2013 in spite of their counsel having been served with notice. In the interest of justice, the case was adjourned for today. However, none is appearing for the petitioners even today. None is either present for the respondents today although their counsel was present on the preceding date of hearing. Resultantly, I have perused the case file.

The petitioners, by claiming themselves to be in possession of the suit land, have admitted the violation and disobedience of the injunction decree passed in favour of respondents/decree holders. Consequently, decree holders are entitled to restoration of possession of the suit land in the execution proceedings. It may be added that it was submitted in the executing Court that even second appeal filed by the petitioners had since been dismissed by this Court although it was alleged that their SLP (SLP) was pending in Hon''ble Supreme Court. However, there is nothing on record to depict the filing of the SLP or status thereof. In any case, there was no stay order of execution of the decree. Consequently, decree is required to be executed.

Notice of motion in the instant revision petition was issued because Hon''ble Supreme Court by an interim order dated 01.12.2006 Annexure P-3 passed in SLP No. 19251 of 2006 involving similar issue, had issued notice to the opposite party and had ordered that in the meantime, warrant of possession may not be executed. For the same reason, the instant revision petition had also been adjourned sine die vide order dated 12.05.2008, to be put up after decision of the aforesaid SLP. The said SLP has since been dismissed by Hon''ble Supreme Court vide order dated 05.09.2011. For this added reason also, the petitioners cannot succeed in the instant revision petition.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find that there is no infirmity, much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the executing Court so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.