LADO Vs. BUDH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 4.4.2012 whereby the Court below has decided the application preferred under Order 21 Rule 32(5) by the decree holder.

(2.) BY judgment and decree dated 20.5.2011 (Annexure P/3), the Court below had partly allowed the suit and defendants were directed to close the door which is opened on the side of disputed place. The decree holder preferred an application aforesaid on the ground that the judgment debtor has not closed the said door, and therefore, appropriate action be taken. In turn, the present petitioners/judgment debtor has filed an application stating that one door in obedience of Court's order is already closed and second door is still open for which there was no dispute. Plaintiff is trying to get the said door closed under the garb of Court order which is not permissible. It is stated that there is no Court order with regard to the second door.

(3.) PER contra, Shri A.K.Nirankari, learned counsel for the respondent, supported the order and submits that alongwith the plaint, a map was filed (page 17) which shows that there is only one door. In the written statement filed in the main suit, at no point of time, present petitioners/judgment debtor stated that there exists another door. He submits that this is an afterthought to defeat and deprive the plaintiff from the fruits of the judgment and decree. He submits that there exists only one door and at the stage of execution, the petitioners cannot be permitted to say that there exists another door.