JASWINDER KAUR Vs. PRITAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dtd. 14/7/2023 (Annexure P-9), passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nakodar (hereinafter referred to as - the Trial Court), whereby Execution Petition No.4 of 2021 filed by the petitioner, under Order 21 Rule 32 read with Sec. 151 CPC, for compliance of judgment and decree dtd. 6/2/1996 passed by learned Trial Court in Civil Suit No.600/1993 titled as Bachan Singh vs. Pritam Singh and others, has been dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts, as culled out from they petition, are that Bachan Singh (father of the petitioner) was owner of one property measuring 5.75 marlas situated in village Turna, Tehsil Shahkot, District Jalandhar. He filed civil suit for grant of permanent injunction, which was decreed vide judgment and decree dtd. 6/2/1996 (Annexure P-3). Bachan Singh expired on 17/11/2003 and the petitioner, being Class-I legal heir and on the basis of registered Will dtd. 27/12/1996, has inherited all his properties and has stepped into the shoes of decree-holder Bachan Singh. Judgment-debtor Nand Singh had also died after passing of the judgment and decree dtd. 6/2/1996 and Chanan Singh stepped into his shoes and is bound by the aforesaid judgment and decree.

(3.) After passing of the said judgment and decree, judgment-debtor Pritam Singh, along with his son Darshan Singh and his brother's son Chanan Singh, by disobeying the said judgment and decree, has forcibly encroached upon major part of property owned by decree-holder from its western side along with side there house and haveli and further raised threats of further intentional disobedience of said judgment and decree. Judgment- debtor Pritam Singh and his son Darshan Singh, even by intentional disobedience of judgment and decree, have demolished the house-wall falling on western side of property of the petitioner/decree-holder and has encroached upon the major portion which is part of the decree and has also affixed a big gate of more than 10 feet and a small gate of about 4-5 feet in width in the said wall and has also raised a ramp through property of decree- holder by using force and threats.