Punjab Waqf Board vs Sarwan Ram

Harkesh Manuja, J

By way of present revision peetition challenge has been laiid to the orderrs dated 05.07.2014 (P-2) and 01.10.2016 (P-4) passed by the learnedd Executing Court and the Court of learned Additionaal District Judgge, Hoshiarpur, respectively, whereby the execution filed by the petitioneer-decree holder has been disposed of being satisfied.

Despite notice, no one has chosen to appear on behalf of the responddent and as such he was prooceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 03.05.2018.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the paper-book.

In the present case, the dispute arose in the executing proceedingss arising out of judgment and decree dated 21.12.2005 passed by the learned Additional Ciivil Judge (Senior Division), Garhshankaar, District Hoshiaprur, in Civil Suit No.24 of 29.01.20033, titled as Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt. Vs. Swaran Ram. The operative paart of the decree is extracted hereunder:-

“It is ordered the suit of plaintiff is decreed with costs for recovery of posssession of the site shown red in colour in the site plan,, comprised of an area of 755 sq. yards in Khewat andd Khatauni No. 162/210, 211 Khasra No. 98 min bouunded as follows East-Street. West-Wakf property, Noorth-Gurdwara Sahib, South-Street, as owner, situatedd in Village Dihana as entered in fard jamabandi 1994-95 by removal of superstructure i.e. temporary chann/ chapper etc.”

Based upon the aforementioned judgment and decree, the petitioner/ plaintiff sought its execution. The Court below while replying upon the demarcation report submitted by the Bailiff carried out with the assistance of concerned Patwari went on to record that the respondent was not in possession of any area forming part of Khasra No.98 and thus no further orders were required to be passed as the decree stoood satisfied.

The aforesaid observations inn the facts and circumstances of the preseent case are against records. Once a positive finding was recorded byy the learned trial Court in parra No.11 of its judgment based on the admiission made by defendant Swwaran Ram admitting his illegaal possession over the suit property, the learned Executing Court coulld not have goone beyond such findings in the absence of those having been upset in any statutory appeal and that too, merely on the basis of some demaarcation report furnished by thhe Bailiff with the assistance of concerned Patwari in the execution proceedings.

Even no observation at all has been made by the Courtts below to the effect that how much is the total area of Khasra No.988; whether besides Dargah, there is any other portion of this Khasra Number in the occupation of any other individual.

In such facts, the revision pettition is allowed. Orders dated 05.07.2014 (P-2) as well as order datedd 01.10.2016 (P-4) passed by the Courts below are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Exeecuting Court for its fresh determination while taking into consideratioon the specific findings recordded by the learned Trial Court in its judgment dated 05.07.2014. The p etitioner/ plaintiff is directed to appear befoore the learned Executing Couurt on 26.09.2025.

Considering the fact that thhe judgment and decree was passed in thhe year 2003, the Executing Court is requested to expedite the proceeddings and conclude the same at the earliest.

Pending misc. application(ss), if any, shall also stand disposed of.