AMAR SINGH Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 25742-CII of 2013- Application is allowed, as prayed for. Civil Revision No. 7019 of 2013 (O &M) The revision is against the order dismissing an objection taken before the Executing Court when the decree for recovery of possession was put in execution. The objections taken were that the decree on the basis of the sale deed obtained by the decree holder was non est and void and that the objector/judgment debtor was a bona fide purchaser of the property in the year 1973 and had better title. Admittedly, at the time when the objection was filed before the Executing Court, there had been an appeal pending against the decree granting the relief of recovery of possession. There was no order of stay of recovery of possession by the appellate Court. The Court passed further process in execution and the judgment debtor, who is aggrieved, is the revision petitioner before this Court.

(2.) The decree holder's right to the property had been obtained as a purchaser in auction in execution of a decree obtained by only Punjab Kaur for compensation for property acquired from her by the Government. The disputed property was attached and claimed by Punjab Kaur as belonging to Government and in the auction held in execution of the decree, the property was claimed to be purchased by the decree holder on 27.03.1990. The purchaser's petition for delivery appears to have been dismissed as time barred, however, having been given a liberty to file a suit for recovery of possession. The instant decree put in execution was the result of such suit filed by the decree holder. Incidentally, the petitioner before this Court the judgment debtor had himself filed a suit for injunction on 15.09.1998 on a plea that the suit property did not belong to the Government and though it had been originally made the subject of acquisition through a notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, it had been later released from acquisition. Both the suits were tried together and the judgment delivered on 15.02.2012 securing a relief of recovery of possession for the decree holder and dismissing the suit filed by the judgment debtor for injunction. An application had been filed by the judgment debtor independently before the District Court where execution had been levied for recovery of money by Punjab Kaur and property purchased by the decree holder. The judgment debtor was, therefore, literally opening yet another forum for adjudication regarding his title, notwithstanding the fact that he had earlier filed a suit for injunction. When the case was still pending, the District Judge, in the miscellaneous application filed by the judgment debtor as a third party, had allowed the application giving him protection from being dispossessed and for restraint against alienation by the court auction purchaser. Against this order passed, it appears that there is a revision filed by the decree holder in Civil Revision No. 4348 of 2006. Against an interim order passed by this Court on 08.01.2007, the judgment debtor had filed a SLP bearing No. 6284 of 2007 to the Supreme Court and the Court passed a cryptic order directing status quo to be maintained in all respects until the disposal of the proceedings before the High Court. It is not very clear from the order whether the Supreme Court was informed about the pendency of the civil suit for injunction filed by the judgment debtor and the suit for recovery of possession filed by the court auction purchaser. The civil revision is still pending before this court.

(3.) The objection of the judgment debtor to the execution of the decree for delivery of possession is that the Supreme Court had granted the status quo to be maintained and further process in execution could not have been therefore levied. The counsel would also point out that the decree holder has actually carried out the delivery proceedings by flouting all norms of process of execution. The learned counsel would point out to an order issued by the Executing Court on 10.04.2013 where it had recorded the fact that the warrant of possession issued had not been returned and a fresh warrant had been issued on 19.07.2013. On 19.07.2013, again a site plan was directed to be filed and a fresh warrant was issued on 27.08.2013. On 27.08.2013, the Court issued a fresh warrant for 05.10.2013. The counsel would point out that the Court recorded the fact that on 27.08.2013, warrant had not been returned as executed and when it was issuing a fresh warrant, the bailiff could not have carried through the process of execution independently on the basis of first warrant issued and purported to deliver possession of property with the assistance of police.