MAJ. RAJ KISHAN Vs. SH. CHIRANJI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order of mine would dispose of two Civil Revision petitions No. 1796 & 1797 of 1988 as the point of law involved is similar. The two revision petitions have arisen out of two orders as two suits were filed by the petitioners for setting aside two alienations made by Gauri Shanker. The facts of the case be picked up from Civil Revn. No. 1796 of 1988.

(2.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the decree-holders against the order of the executing court dated 1.2.1988 passed by Shri G.L. Goyal, Senior Subordinate Judge, Jind whereby the objection petition filed by the judgment debtor Chiranji Lal has been allowed. Under the impugned order, it has been held that the procedure as laid down under order 21 rule 35(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure should be followed. In the revision petition judgment debtor-respondent No. 1 Chiranji Lal has been served. He has chosen not to appear despite service.

(3.) THE precise argument of Shri V.K. Jhanji, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners is that once the executing court at an earlier occasion has held that the petitioners-decree holders are entitled to actual physical possession of the property in dispute, the executing court at a later stage cannot legally hold that the procedure prescribed under Order 21 Rule 35 CPC must be followed. The argument has got all the force. I have perused the order passed by Shri S.D. Arora on 2.11.1981. He has specifically observed in the following terms :-