JEET SINGH Vs. MOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS will also dispose of Civil Revision No. 451 of 1990 as the question involved is common in both the petitions.

(2.) MOHAN Singh filed two suits for possession against Model Line Colonisers and Inderjit Singh Gujral, Managing Director of Colonisers. Both the suits were decreed up to the High Court. Two execution applications were filed in which warrants of possession have been issued. When the Bailiff reached the spot, the petitioners (objectors) resisted the possession as they were in possession of the suit property and bad constructed their houses thereon. The decree holder moved an application under Order 21, Rule 97, C. P. C. complaining of such resistence or obstruction and sought police help. The objectors then made an application dated 9th June, 1989, for setting aside the said order granting police help and for withdrawal of warrants of possession. The said application was resisted on behalf of the decree-holder. The Executing Court found that the application was without any merit as their names had not been recorded in the Khasra giraawari, a copy of which was placed on the record by the decree-holder. According to the Executing Court, the judgment debtors have lost up to High Court and now the decree holder is applying for the delivery of the possession to which he is entitled Since there was a report of the Kanungo that there was apprehension of breach of peace, the possession could be delivered to the decree-holder with the help of police. Consequently the, objection petition was dismissed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Executing Court could not dismiss the said objections summarily and the same was to be decided on merits after framing the issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence. According to the learned counsel, when such application was filed under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 97 of Order 21 by the decree-holder, the same was to be adjudicated upon in accordance with the provisions provided therein. Since no such procedure was followed and the objectors were never given an opportunity to prove their case, the order was liable to be set aside.