HARNAM SINGH Vs. ARBINDU NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Section 115-of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') challenges order dated 23-9-2000 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division). Gurdaspur dismissing the objections of the judgment-debtor - petitioners (for brevity, JD-petition- ers') in which it was claimed that the decree dated 23-12-1993 passed in favour of the decree-holder - respondents (for brevity, DH-respondents) could not be executed without satisfying the claim of the JD-petition-ers which was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 18-11-1953.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the DH-respondents filed a Civil suit for possession by way of redemption and also sought direction to the JD-petitioners to remove the super-structure and malba. The suit was decreed on 23-12-1993. The JD-petitioners have filed objections under Section 47 of the Code which have been rejected by the executing Court vide impugned order dated 23-9-2000 on the principal ground that any pre-decree objections should have been raised in the suit itself. The objectors could not claim the amount by setting up a counter-claim because in the decree dated 18-11-1953 their claim for Rs. 1356/- on account of sinking of a well in the land in dispute and Rs. 70/- the costs of the trees planted by them was decreed. The additional ground which weighed with the executing Court is that the law of limitation would interfere to defeat the claim of the JD-petitioners. The view of the executing Court in this regard reads as under :

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner, it has been pleaded in the grounds of revision that the decree-holder-respondent has failed to deposit the amount due in pursuance of the decree dated 18-11-1953 passed by the Civil Judge, Gurdaspur and, therefore, the decree-holder is not entitled to execute the decree dated 23-12-1993. The amount of Rs. 1356/- on account of cost of sinking well in the suit land and Rs. 70/- as cost of trees planted by predecessor of JD- petitioner was liable to be paid to the JD-petitioner as it has been decreed vide judgment arid decree dated 18-11-1953.