Major Singh and others vs Harnek Singh and others

Present civil revision petition, at the hands of petitioners, filed

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order

dated 16.08.2017 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned executing Court,

whereby objections raised by the petitioners were dismissed and warrants of

possession were issued against them.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

Admittedly, the parties arrived at a compromise vide Ex.CX

before the learned Lok Adalat No.4 at Sri Muktsar Sahib on 22.03.2003. In the

said compromise, petitioners undertook to hand over the possession to the

decree-holders, after getting it vacated from Paramjit Singh @ Pamma. Said

Paramjit Singh, who was in possession at that point of time, also made a

statement that possession shall be handed over on or before 30.04.2003.

However, despite having been put the same question repeatedly to learned

counsel for the petitioners to show any document, whereby the petitioners

might have handed over the possession to the decree-holders after 22.03.2003,

he had no answer and rightly so, it being a matter of record.

It seems that the petitioners are trying to misuse the process of

law to its maximum, because of their malafide intention to retain the

possession as long as they can. Neither they are honouring the compromise

Ex.CX nor they are intending to comply with the specific directions issued by

the Court, as if they are above the law. Such litigants, who have been found to

be playing with the system, do not deserve any sympathy from this Court as

well. It is so said because once the petitioners entered into the compromise

without any pressure from any side, they were bound by the terms and

conditions of said compromise, even if some of the conditions were found

onerous at a later point of time. If the petitioners are permitted to back out

from the compromise at this stage, after lapse of more than 14 years, it would

be an unending litigation between the parties. Having said that, this Court

feels no hesitation to conclude that the learned executing Court was well

within its jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and the same deserves to be

upheld.

The impugned order has been found based on very sound reasons.

The operative part of the impugned order contained in paras 6 and 7 thereof,

which deserves to be noticed here, reads as under: -

"Upon hearing the contentions raised by both the learned

counsel for the parties and going through the record on file, I

find Harnek Singh and others Versus Major Singh and others that

The Dhaipai Cooperative Scheduled Caste Land Owning Society

Ltd Dhaipai, registered under Punjab Cooperative Societies Act,

1961, is owner of some of the property and the applicants-DH

Harnek Singh and Simarjit Singh are not members of said

society. There are residential houses in khasra No.575, 577,

which are in occupation of several members of society and there

is no dispute regarding khasra No.575. As regard the jurisdiction

of this Court to hear and try the present execution application,

perusal of the record shows that on 22.03.2003, a Mega Lok

Adalat was held at Sri Muktsar Sahib, where the order was

passed. However, the property in dispute was situated in Faridkot

and as such, the Court at Faridkot has jurisdiction to hear and

try the present execution application. Furthermore, said

compromise decree was passed with the consent of both the

parties i.e. DH-applicants as well as JD-respondents, as the

compromise Ex.CX was effected before the Lok Adalat No.4, Sri

Muktsar Sahib on 22.03.2003. The present objection-petition

filed by JDs are mere to delay the proceedings of execution.

Perusal of copy of jamabandi for the year 2002-2003 shows that

the property bearing khasra No.571 (5-7), 574 (2-0), 576 (2-0),

573 (4-8), 567 (5-13), 570 (6-0), 576 (2-2), 577 (2-0), 577 (4-17)

belong to Punjab Government. Neither The Dhaipai Cooperative

Scheduled Caste Land Owning Society Ltd. Dhaipai was party to

compromise Ex.CX nor any dispute was with DH and JD with the

society.

In view of whole above discussion, I am of the considered

view that there is absolutely no merit in the objection-petitions

and hence, both the objection-petitioners i.e. one filed on behalf

of The Dhaipai Cooperative Scheduled Caste Land Owning

Society Ltd. Dhaipai through its President and other filed on

behalf of JD-respondents, are hereby dismissed."

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners

could not point out patent illegality or perversity in the impugned order, which

may warrant interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising its

revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The

impugned order passed by the learned trial Court has been found based on

sound reasons and the same deserves to be upheld, for this reason as well.

No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case

noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the

considered view that since no illegality or perversity has been found in the

impugned order, the same deserves to be upheld. The revision petition having

been found wholly misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance,

must fail. No ground for interference has been made out.

Resultantly, with the abovesaid observations made, present

revision petition stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.