RAM PARKASH SINGH Vs. HARINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside of the order dtd. 18/5/2022 (Annexure P-9), vide which the objections of the petitioner/judgment debtor have been dismissed and order dtd. 18/5/2022 (Annexure P-10), vide which the warrants of possession of the premises in dispute, have been issued by giving directions to the bailiff to remove/break open the lock of two rooms and thereafter, put the respondent/decree-holder in possession of the aforementioned premises.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the executing Court fell into error while passing the impugned order by ignoring that the judgment and decree passed by the Rent Controller on 15/2/2019, was completely silent about the description of the demised premises. Hence, the decree being null and void and un-executable, no warrants of possession could have been issued by the executing Court. He further submits that the executing Court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction by relying upon the site plan, annexed by the respondent (landlord)/decree holder along with the rent petition for identification of the demised premises, even though, it was not exhibited. Learned counsel thus submits that a document, which was not admitted in evidence, could not have been relied upon by the executing Court for any purpose including for the purpose of identification of the suit property. He also submits that on account of the day-to-day hearings of the execution proceedings, conducted by the executing Court, a grave prejudice had been caused to him.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material on record.