MOHINDER SINGH Vs. NARINDER KUMAR SINGLA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOHINDER Singh, who is son of judgment -debtor (JD)/proforma respondent no. 4, has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning order dated 26.08.2013 (Annexure P -1), passed by the Executing Court and warrant of possession (Annexure P -4), issued pursuant to order Annexure P -1 Respondents no. 1 to 3 -decree -holders (DHs) have filed execution petition against proforma respondent no. 4 -JD. In the said execution petition, warrant of possession of the suit property was issued, but the same could not be executed as the disputed shop was lying locked. Accordingly, on application filed by DHs, the Executing Court, in the presence of counsel for JD, vide order Annexure P -1, directed issuance of fresh warrant of possession of the disputed shop with direction that possession be delivered after breaking open the lock and resultantly, warrant of possession (Annexure P -4) has been issued.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contended that on coming to know of the order Annexure P -1, the petitioner has filed third -party objections, and therefore, possession should not be delivered before decision of the said objections.

(3.) THE aforesaid contention cannot be accepted because no such prayer has even been made in the revision petition. On the other hand, in the instant revision petition, order Annexure P -1 with consequential warrant of possession has been challenged. There is no infirmity, much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order Annexure P -1 passed by the Executing Court so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.