Madan Lal vs Karam Singh and Another

L.N. Mittal, J.—Aggrieved by order dated 14.06.2011 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Executing Court, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-6) filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 32 of the CPC (in short - CPC), decree-holder Madan Lal has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail order Annexure P-7. Suit filed by the petitioner against respondents was decreed by the trial court for permanent injunction as well as for mandatory injunction. However, in appeal, decree for mandatory injunction passed by the trial court was set aside and suit remained decreed for permanent injunction only.

In application Annexure P-6, the petitioner alleged that the respondents have no respect for law and in spite of injunction decree, they are trying to interfere in possession of the plaintiff and remained adamant in spite of request by the plaintiff, who also made application Annexure P-5 to the police, whereupon both - petitioner and respondent no. 1 were challaned under Sections 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short - Cr.P.C.). Accordingly, the petitioner sought attachment and sale of property of respondents/judgment-debtors for violation of the decree and claimed proper compensation for himself and also sought detention of respondents in civil prison.

Respondents, by filing reply, opposed the application and denied the averments made therein.

Learned Executing Court, after framing issues and recording evidence, dismissed application (Annexure P-6) filed by the petitioner, vide order Annexure P-7, which is under challenge in this revision petition at the hands of decree-holder.

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

Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that respondents are violating the injunction decree by trying to interfere in possession of the petitioner over the suit property, and therefore, respondents should be punished in accordance with Order 21 Rule 32 CPC.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, which cannot be accepted.

As noticed hereinbefore, there is only vague averment in application Annexure P-6 that the respondents were trying to interfere in possession of the plaintiff. The same vague averment was reiterated by the petitioner while appearing in the witness-box. On the basis of such vague and general averment, the respondents cannot be said to have disobeyed injunction decree so as to call for punitive action against them under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. No act of commission or omission on the part of respondents has even been alleged in application Annexure P-6 to depict that they tried to violate the injunction decree. On the contrary, on the basis of application Annexure P-5 moved by the petitioner to the police, both petitioner and respondent no. 1 were challaned under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. Application Annexure P-6 was moved seven months after application Annexure P-5 had been moved to the police. It is thus apparent that the petitioner has miserably failed to prove that the defendants were trying to interfere in possession of the petitioner over the suit property in violation of the injunction decree. What to talk of proof, in fact there is not even sufficient averment in application Annexure P-6 in this regard.

In view of the aforesaid, it is manifest that application Annexure P-6 has been rightly dismissed by the Executing Court. There is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned order passed by the Executing Court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is sans any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. Civil Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, stand disposed of as infructuous.