SURJIT SINGH Vs. SH GIAN SINGH GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is against the order of the executing Court dated 25 3-1991 whereby the objections filed by the judgment debtor have been dismissed summarily.

(2.) BRIEFLY put, Gian Singh-specified landlord of the demised premises-filed an ejectment application against tenant Surjit Singh- Judgment debtor-which was allowed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 17-7 1989. Surjit Singh judgment debtor-petitioner filed revision No. 2636 of 1989 before the High Court which too was dismissed on 26-7-J989. On 21-9 1989 Gian Singh decree holder filed the execution application Pursuance to the not issued to the judgment-debtor, the judgment-debtor raised a number of objections mainly contending that he has purchased the suit property from Ram Singh-brother of Surjit Singh on 9-1-199 \ and this way Gian Singh decree holder is left with no right or title in the suit property. Decree-holder, on the other hand, submitted that sale deed dated 9 1-1991 was sham and bogus document and the same does not in any manner effect the right of the decree-holder to execute the decree In addition thereto, the decree holder urged that judgment debtor has already filed a suit on 4-12-1989 seeking permanent injunction against the decree-holder. However, in this suit judgment-debtor's prayer for interim injunction was declined by the court The executing court found no merit in any of the objections raised by the judgment-debtor and so dismissed the same vide order dated 25-3-1991.

(3.) BEFORE me learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of the executing court on the ground that the various objections raised by him could not have been dismissed by the executing court summarily. He further urged that in view of the specific averments made by the judgment-debtor that there has been a family partition and as per the said family partition, the suit property fell to the share of Ram Singh and his sister Swarn Kaur and Kulwant Kaur who have sold the same to the petitioner vide sale deed dated 9-1-1991 could not be brushed aside only on the ground that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree. He further urged that the court/ executing court is to keep in mind the subsequent events/supervening circumstances and mould the relief in the changed circumstances. The counsel relied upon Madan Lal v. Harkishan Lal, (1966) 68 P. L. R. D. 14. ; Zarina Begum v. Faquir Hussain, 1990 P. L. J. 289. ; Ajaib Singh v. Saon Singh, (1991-2) 100 P. L. R. 318 and Charanjit Singh v. Manmohan Singh, (1989-1) 95 P. L. R. 494