JUGGA Vs. MAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUIT for permanent injunction filed by Mai Singh, respondent was decreed in his favour on February 21, 1986. He filed an application under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that the judgment-debtor, petitioner after passing of the decree illegally and forcibly constructed a wall on the eastern side of the plot owned by him. The application was contested by Jugga, judgment-debtor. It was submitted that the alleged wall was an old construction and that no construction was raised by him after the passing of the decree dated February 21, 1986 and that the construction, if any, existed even before the filing of the suit.

(2.) AFTER affording an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, learned executing Court directed the judgment-debtor to restore the possession of a part of the plot in which he had constructed the wall, within a month failing which proceedings for attachment of the property of the judgment-debtor would be taken. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the executing court, the judgment-debtor has filed the present revision.

(3.) LEARNED executing Court rightly noticed that the question involved in the petition was, whether the judgment-debtor encroached upon a part of the plot of the applicant after passing of the decree dated February 21, 1986 and for holding that the judgment-debtor had made encroachment and constructed a wall on the southern eastern corner of the plot in dispute, it took into consideration the demarrcation report dated May 15, 1986, Exhibit A,l and concluded that the perusal of the demarcation report showed that the judgment-debtor had illegal possession over the side in dispute of the decree-holder. As against this, report of the local commissioner dated May 10, 1990 was rejected by the executing Court by observing that the same was made on the basis of observations and on seeing the bricks whether the same were new or old. It was ultimately concluded that from the demarcation report it was apparent that the judgment debtor had made illegal encroachment and that the report of the local commissioner regarding construction of wall, it being 10/15 years old, cannot be looked into as it has already been decided by the Court that there was no construction of wall over the plot in dispute of the decree-holder.