JAGDISH RAI Vs. DALIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE decree-holder-appellants have filed this appeal against the order of the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, dt. 30th Sept. , 1978, whereby the order of the executing Court, dismissing the objection petition filed on behalf of the judgment-debtors, was set aside.

(2.) THE decree-holders got a decree for possession, mandatory injunction and prohibitory injunction against the judgment debtors from the Court of the learned District Judge, in appeal, on 29th July, 1958, R. S. A. No. 680 of 1958 filed on behalf of the judgment-debtor Dalip Singh was dismissed on 14th July, 1961. Subsequently, even the L. P. A. No. 314 of 1961 was also dismissed on 16th July, 1969. On 12th Jan, 1972, an application for execution under O. 21, R. 32 of the Civil P. C. was filed, in which the judgment-debtors filed an objection petition. The executing Court inspected the spot on 14th Apr. 1974 and also recorded the evidence of the parties in support of their contentions. Ultimately, vide its order dt. 10th May, 1974, the executing Court came to the conclusion that the judgment-debtors had contravened the decree by placing wooden-structure thereon. It was, therefore, directed that the judgment-debtors should obey the decree and remove the wooden stall within the time allowed. Feeling aggrieved against this order, the judgment-debtor Dalip Singh filed an appeal, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, by order dt. 30th Sept. , 1978, now under appeal.

(3.) THE sole question in this case to be determined is whether the land, on which the judgment-debtor has placed his wooden structure, as alleged by the decree-holders, forms part of the decree for permanent injunction granted in their favour. The executing Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties and perusing the copy of the decree sheet, with reference to the site plan and the inspection note dt. 14th Apr. , 1974, came to the conclusion that "the site" where the J. D. has put in a wooden stall is covered by the decree and the J. D. has no right to install any stall there and the alleged panchayat has no right to give that site on rent to the J. D. unless it establishes its right by brings a separate suit. " The learned Additional District Judge though has reproduced the decree passed by the learned District Judge, Rohtak on 29th July, 1958, but it is unfortunate that he has failed to give the boundaries of the courtyard, which are very much there given in the decree. He has proceeded on the assumption that the decree not only related to the site marked by letters 'ff-HG', whereas the decree not only related to the site 'ef-HG', but the defendant-judgment-debtor was further restrained permanently from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land or from raising any structure on the courtyard bounded below :-East : Shops of plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 26. West : Thoroughfare and road. South : Road and thoroughfare. North : Shops of defendants and Mst. Manbhari plaintiff.