SAUN SINGH Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Karnail Singh and Saun Singh sons of Amar Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction against Gurcharan Singh, Harbhajan Singh and Gurbachan Singh sons of Jora Singh and others. The plaintiffs claim themselves to be the owners and in possession of the suit land, and as the defendants wanted to dispossess them forcibly, the said suit was filed. The defence taken by the defendants was that they were in cultivating possession of the suit land by virtue of being the sons of Jora Singh. The trial Court found that the plaintiffs are the owners and in possession of the suit land and consequently, decreed their suit vide order dated 27th July, 1977. The appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur vide order dated 25th May, 1978. Against the said judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, earlier RSA No. 1038 of 1978 was filed by Gurcharan Singh son of Jora Singh, which was dismissed in line on 14th July, 1985. Later on, Harbhajan Singh another son of Jora Singh filed RSA No. 1377 of 1978 which was admitted on 4th September, 1978.

(2.) Since the defendants had taken forcible possession of the suit land, they moved an execution application under Order 21, Rule 32 Civil Procedure Code. Those proceedings were stayed earlier on 12th September, 1980 because of the pendency of RSA No. 1377 of 1978. After the dismissal of the said RSA, the said execution proceedings were revived. Therein the judgment debtors appeared and made the statement that they are not in possession of the land regarding which the decree was passed on 27th July, 1977 by the trial Court. The Executing Court found that since the judgment debtors are not in possession of the suit land, they could not be sent to Civil Prison nor they could be directed to deliver the possession and, consequently, dismissed the execution application on 17th May, 1986. Dissatisfied with the same, the decree-holders have filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgment-debtors are abusing the process of Court by not delivering the possession of the suit land, which they have taken forcibly during the pendency of the suit, particularly in view of the order of status quo obtained by them from this Court. According to the learned counsel, the conduct of the judgment debtors-respondents speaks for itself. The whole approach of the Execution Court, submitted the learned counsel, is wholly wrong, illegal and erroneous and it has thus acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction.