RANJIT SINGH Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision is at the instance of the judgment-debtors challenging the orders passed by the Executing Court on various dates, namely, on 07.01.2012, 18.01.2012 and 15.01.2012. The genesis of the order was in an application filed by a person purporting to act on behalf of the decree-holder through an application filed on 12.12.2011 seeking for revival of an execution application pertaining to decree obtained in the District Court at Patiala on 14.01.1957. The case has had a long chequered history and it would be necessary to recall the essential facts to come to the grips of the problem that is involved in the case.

(2.) The suit had been filed for enforcement of a property of pre-emption at the instance of four persons Narayan Singh, Pratap Singh, Mitha Singh and Babu Singh. The suit had been decreed originally on 14.01.1957. In an appeal filed by the judgment-debtor to the High Court, the decree had been modified to deny the right of pre-emption to Partap Singh, Mitha Singh and Babu Singh and restricted the claim to pre-emption in respect of the whole of the property to Narayan Singh only through a decree dated 07.04.1961. This judgment of the High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court in appeal on 11.03.1966. Originally, a direction had been given by the trial Court for deposit of the amount payable by the plaintiff within a period of two months. The decree-holder moved to the High Court subsequent to the disposal of the case by the Supreme Court having deposited 1/3 rd amount seeking for permission to deposit remaining 2/3 rd amount. It appears that the remaining amount was directed to be deposited through an order dated 24.10.1975, which was also done. At the time when the tables were cleared for the proceedings to secure the fruits of the decree after the disposal of appeal in the year 1966 and subsequent to a modification order obtained from the High Court with reference to the deposit of money, a fresh suit had come to be filed at the instance of judgmentdebtor and a fresh round of litigation, therefore, went from the trial Court to the District Court and still later to the High Court in a Regular Second Appeal in RSA No.165 of 2004. The execution application, which had been filed before the Civil Court at Rajpura on 18.06.1966, was still later renewed through an application on 17.09.1981 and still later on 20.02.2004 but the execution had remained stayed in the subsequent suit filed and through orders of stay obtained in higher forums. The High Court appears to have dismissed in RSA No.165 of 2004 on 19.01.2011 and the Supreme Court had also dismissed the SLP filed by the judgment debtor on 09.05.2011. It becomes evident that there is no more obstruction to the decree, which had been passed on 19.01.1957 that stood modified on 07.04.1961 in so far as it restricted the right of preemption only to one person Narayan Singh. The execution application, which had been filed in the first suit in the year 1966 and still later on 17.09.1981 had been stayed sine die to await the decision of the High Court in R.S.A. No.165 of 2004. There had been subsequent application also on 20.02.2004 for execution of the decree and it is for revival of this application that the petition came to be filed on 12.12.2011. The warrant of possession had already been issued after the deposit had been made in execution application No.40 of 1979 on 17.09.1981 but even the warrant of possession remained unexecuted and the prayer literally was for revival of the warrant of possession that had been issued in the execution petition.

(3.) The person claiming to be a representative of the decreeholder as a power of attorney had filed the following documents namely: