MANGAL SINGH Vs. MAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a suit for injunction filed by one Mangal Singh (Petitioner herein) against one Rakha, decree was passed restraining Rakha from interfering in possession of the petitioner over land pertaining to Khatauni No. 336/811 Khasra No. 71/19. 4. (0-9 ). The suit was decreed on 3. 2. 1987. Rakha died in the year 1990. An application was filed by the petitioner under Order 21, Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure against three sons of Rakha alleging therein that they had been threatening to forcibly occupy the land and are holding threats that they would dispossess him. This application, on contest by sons of Rakha, who are respondents herein, was dismissed. The petitioner has impugned the order in this Civil Revision.

(2.) THE only contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the respondents admitted that they are in possession of land measuring 3 marlas, the Court ought to have presumed that they have violated the decree. He also contended that sons of Rakha are bound by the decree passed against him. In support of this, the learned counsel placed reliance. In: (i) A. I. R. 1981 Madras 354, V. S. Alwar Ayyangar v. Guruswamy Thevar (ii) A. I. R. 1989 Kerala 133, K. Umma v. T. K. Kamppan.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel at some length and on going through the statement made by the witnesses before the Executing Court, I am of the view that there is no merit in this civil revision Decree-holder had come to the Court with the allegation that the respondents have threatened that they would forcibly dispossess him. This has remained a mere allegation. Apart from tendering decree-sheet and the judgment, petitioner had not produced any other evidence. In order to make out a case the petitioner was required to prove disobedience of the decree. To prove disobedience of the decree, initial onus is always on the decree-holder. This could be proved by placing relevant material on the record, but the petitioner having failed to do so, the Executing Court rightly dismissed his application. Petitioner at no stage was prepared to assist the Court to find out the factual position existing at the spot. This is clear from the fact that an application Was filed by the respondents for appointment of Local Commissioner in order to get a report but the prayer was opposed by the petitioner. Though in revisional jurisdiction, 1 was not required to go into the evidence, yet in order to satisfy myself, I allowed the counsel to read the statement in Court and on going through the statement, I find that the trial Court rightly refused to proceed against the respondents on application filed by the petitioner Under Order 21, Rule 21 Rule 32 of the Code.