Sat Parkash vs Suresh Chand and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—By means of this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 18th February, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby he affirmed the order of the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Jawali, District Kangra dated 27th April, 2006 dismissing the application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC filed by the present Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the decree holder).

The undisputed facts are that the decree holder obtained a decree against the Respondents (here-in-after referred to as the judgment debtors) whereby the Respondents were restrained from raising any construction over the suit land or blocking the path of the applicant till the property is partitioned in accordance with law. It appears that the passage was blocked by the Respondents by raising a wall. Thereafter, contempt petition was filed by the decree holder. During the course of this contempt proceeding, the wall was demolished and the judgment debtors made a statement during contempt proceedings that they would not raise any construction.

The claim of the decree holder is that despite the decree of the Court and the undertaking given by them in the contempt proceedings the judgment debtors have again disobeyed the orders and have started raising construction over the suit property. The Respondents-Defendants were restrained from raising any construction over Khasra No. 818 and 819. Both the Courts below have come to a finding of fact that the decree holder has miserably failed to prove that the Defendants have raised any construction on these khasra numbers. No demarcation was got conducted by the decree holder. In fact the witness of the decree holder, AW-2 Taru Ram himself stated that one of the judgment debtors was attempted to take possession of the land by throwing stones on it. He also stated that a passage is still existing between the land of the decree holder and the judgment debtors and that the judgment debtor Suresh has also kept a passage for approaching his shop and Sat Prakash is using the same for approaching his shop. It is thus obvious that the passage has not been blocked. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.