NANDA Vs. RAM DHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 15.6.2000 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Sonepat, who dismissed the objections of the petitioner and also held that warrant of restoration of the possession could be issued in favour of the decree-holder under Order 21 Rule 32, C.P.C.

(2.) Some facts can be noticed in the following manner : A decree for permanent injunction was passed in favour of Ram Dhan against the defendants including the present petitioner vide which the defendants were restrained from interfering in the possession of the decree-holder. The decree-holder filed an execution application under Order 21 Rule 32, C.PC. In Column No. 11 of the execution application, the decree-holder prayed that the relief may be given to him by issuing warrant of arrest for putting judgment-debtor Nos. 2 to 8 in civil prison or by attaching their properties or by both The petitioner filed objections to the execution application praying that the proceedings of the execution may be stayed. It was pleaded by the petitioner that the Gram Panchayat was the owner of the property in dispute. The father of judgment-debtor No. 3 and father of the decree-holder used to cultivate the same. Later on judgment-debtor No. 3 started cultivating the land bearing Killa Nos. 270/7 and 270/14. The entries with regard to the column of ownership have been wrongly shown in favour of the decree-holder. It was also pleaded that the decree-holder has not mentioned in the execution application on which date and time the judgment-debtor No. 3 has violated the decree for permanent injunction and in these circumstances, it was pleaded by the petitioner for the stay and dismissal of the execution proceedings. The decree-holder filed the reply to the objections and it was pleaded that the Gram Panchayat and the decree-holder were the owners in equal shares. The father of judgment-debtor No. 3 never remained in cultivating possession of the disputed property. The decree-holder became the owner and he was in possession of half share of the disputed land. The application of judgment-debtor No. 3 for correction of Khasra Girdawari has already been rejected and was further pleaded by the decree-holder that the judgment-debtors have taken forcible and illegal possession of the property in question after 26/11/1997.

(3.) The learned Executing Court, for the reasons given in para 5 of the impugned order, which is reproduced hereinbelow, dismissed the objections .