KRISHAN DEV Vs. NAND KISHORE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this revision petition against respondents under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 14.03.2014 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Garhshankar being wrong, illegal and perverse, vide which the execution petition under Order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C. has been dismissed and objection application of respondents has illegally been allowed, though admittedly, restraint order dated 03.08.2002 and judgment and decree dated 20.09.2005 have been violated and construction raised and moreover, findings given vide impugned order are absolutely presumptive in nature and the impugned order is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

(2.) From the record, I find that learned Addl. Civil Judge, vide order dated 14.03.2014 held that objection of JDs No. 3 and 4 that they had put barbed wire in the suit land and also constructed a room for electric motor, cannot be considered as construction by the JDs. The Court held that these constructions carried out by Diem are temporary in nature and subservient to the agricultural purposes. Learned Court has correctly held that constructions are carried out for the improvement of the suit land and to make the best use of the suit land in a proper manner to make it more fit for the agricultural purposes. If the electric motor has been installed for irrigating the land and barbed wire has been fixed to save the crop from the animals etc. and further a temporary room has been constructed over the electric motor to protect the electric motor from rain etc., in no way, can be held as constructions. These things, such as placing barbed wire, installing tube well in the land and raising temporary construction over the electric motor, are subservient to agricultural purposes and to make the best use and for improvement of the agricultural land. Therefore, in no way, it can be held that impugned order is perverse or illegal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh Saint v. High Court of Delhi, 2011 4 RCR(Civ) 402 . I have gone through this cited judgment and the same: having distinguished facts will not apply in the present case. In view of the above discussion, I find that the impugned order dated 14.03.2014 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Garhshankar is correct and as per law and does not require any interference from this Court. Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.