SUKHDEV AND OTHERS Vs. KRISHNA DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment two revision petitions bearing C.R. No.794 of 2010 and C.R. No.4605 of 2010 shall be disposed of. However, the facts are being extracted from C.R. No.794 of 2010.

(2.) Petitioners are judgment debtors and have filed the present revision petition against order dated 18.01.2010 passed by Executing Court vide which, the objections filed by judgment debtors have been dismissed. The respondent-decree holder filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction while challenging cancellation of allotment of plot. The civil suit was contested by the Punjab Wakf Board as well as the present petitioners. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.09.2006 declared cancellation letter dated 07.02.1996 as null and void and as a consequence thereof, the agreement to sell dated 02.12.1995 was also declared null and void. Two appeals were filed against the said judgment dated 19.09.2006. One appeal was filed by the petitioners and other appeal was filed by the respondent-Wakf Board. Both the appeals were decided by Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment dated 13.03.2007. Regular Second Appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by this Court on 03.07.2009 and thereafter, SLP filed by the petitioners was also dismissed. Thereafter, respondent decree holder filed a execution petition and petitioners filed objections by stating that the judgment and decree is capable of execution of only 300 square yards whereas in site plan, it has been shown to be of 480 square yards, which were marked as letters ABCD. The objections filed by the petitioners were dismissed vide order dated 18.01.2010 by the Executing Court and the same has been challenged by way of filing the present revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the objections were wrongly dismissed whereas the case of decree holder was based on the allotment order and cancellation letter. No neither any area was mentioned in the civil suit nor in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The decree holder is misusing the process of law by taking advantage of the site plan and he cannot have possession of the land more than his area. The issue whether 300 square yards was allotted to the decree holder or 480 square yards was leased out to the petitioner was not the issue in the ealier civil litigation. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the Executing Court is competent to interpret or to clarify the ambiguity in the decree. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon the judgment of this Court in Inderjit Singh vs. Rajinder Kaur and others, 2007 146 PunLR 157.