CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Mohinder Singh vs Narinder Kumar Singla and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 4 September 2013 · Citation: (2013) 09 P&H CK 0289

HON’BLE JUDGES
L.N. Mittal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.R. No. 5377 of 2013 (O and M)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 370 words

L.N. Mittal, J.

C.M. No. 18417-CII of 2013:

Allowed as prayed for.

Main Case:

1.

Mohinder Singh, who is son of judgment-debtor (JD)/proforma respondent no. 4, has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning order dated 26.08.2013 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Executing Court and warrant of possession (Annexure P-4), issued pursuant to order Annexure P-1. Respondents no. 1 to 3-decree-holders (DHs) have filed execution petition against proforma respondent no. 4-JD. In the said execution petition, warrant of possession of the suit property was issued, but the same could not be executed as the disputed shop was lying locked. Accordingly, on application filed by DHs, the Executing Court, in the presence of counsel for JD, vide order Annexure P-1, directed issuance of fresh warrant of possession of the disputed shop with direction that possession be delivered after breaking open the lock and resultantly, warrant of possession (Annexure P-4) has been issued.

2.

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

3.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that on coming to know of the order Annexure P-1, the petitioner has filed third-party objections, and therefore, possession should not be delivered before decision of the said objections.

4.

The aforesaid contention cannot be accepted because no such prayer has even been made in the revision petition. On the other hand, in the instant revision petition, order Annexure P-1 with consequential warrant of possession has been challenged. There is no infirmity, much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order Annexure P-1 passed by the Executing Court so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5.

It may be added that the execution petition was filed on 03.03.2012 and impugned order Annexure P-1 is dated 26.08.2013, passed in the presence of counsel for the JD. JD is none else but mother of the petitioner. Consequently, it cannot be said prima facie that the petitioner was not aware of the execution proceedings prior to filing of objections on 30.08.2013. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine.