MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, NARNAUL Vs. PREM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Executing Court dated October 17, 1990 dismissing the objections filed by the Judgment-Debtor.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present petition are that a judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 259 of 1968 dated January 18, 1969, was passed in favour of Prem Chand-present respondent etc. and a direction was issued that Municipal Committee would not interfere over the land measuring 554 square yards and sq. feet of land which was the subject matter of the present proceedings as well. Another suit was thereafter filed by Prem Chand aforementioned and an injunction was sought that the Municipal Committee be restrained from constructing a wall opposite the seven stalls owned by Prem Chand. This suit as well as the appeals filed subsequently were dismissed. The claim of the judgment-debtor in the present case is that by virtue of the judgment of the High Court in the second suit, the decree obtained in the suit of 1969, was by implication, set aside and could not be executed. The executing Court after examining the various contentions raised dismissed the (sic) against which the present proceedings (sic). The executing court found that the nature of the first and the second suit was totally different and as such, the first suit, still held the field, and as such, dismissal of the second suit would not give a right to the Municipal Committee to encroach upon the land of the respondent.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the respondents, I find that the judgment of the Executing Court is correct and cannot be faulted on any score. It appears to me that the second suit really pertained to the construction of a wall in front of the seven stalls in occupation of the tenants of the respondent - Prem Chand and the question of raising construction over 554 square yards land of the plaintiff, was not in issue. The executing court has also found that the second suit though it related to the same land, was dismissed with a finding that there had been no encroachment but the petitioner- Committee could construct a wall or divert a road temporarily. This reasoning, to my mind, is correct It is, therefore, apparent that the objections sought to be made, by the Judgment-debtor in the present proceedings to the effect that by reason of the judgment and decree in the second suit, the judgment and decree in the first one, become non-est, are without merit.