GURDIAL SINGH Vs. RAM PAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated March 24, 1984, of the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Mansa, staying the proceedings in execution application filed under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by Gurdial Singh, petitioner, and declining to dismiss an application filed by Brij Lal Yadav, respondent to the present proceedings.

(2.) Gurdial Singh, the present petitioner, obtained a decree for possession of land measuring 3 Kanals 4 marlas comprised in Khasra No. 996 -min, situated at Mansa Kalan against Ram Pal and others. The appeal of the defendants was dismissed by the Appellate Court on February 22, 1983, and the judgment and decree has become final.

(3.) Gurdial Singh filed an application for execution of the decree on October 5, 1983. The warrants of possession against the judgment-debtors were issued. Shri Lachhman Singh, Kanungo, along with other officials went to the site to deliver possession to Gurdial Singh. He found that there existed a cotton factory on the land in dispute. The door of the factory was closed from inside. The gateman refused entry to the revenue officials and the decree- holder. Lachhman Singh, Kanungo, made a report to the Executing Court mentioning these facts and praying that orders be passed for uprooting the machinery and demolishing the factory building and also for providing police help. Gurdial Singh had not yet filed any application for re-issuance of the warrants of possession by demolishing the factory building et cetera or for providing police help, when Brij Lal Yadav respondent, moved an application under section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, on January 6, 1984, resisting the delivery of possession from the land, in dispute, under the warrant of possession issued in the execution proceedings instituted by Gurdial Singh, decree-holder. In the application he pleaded that he was in adverse possession of the disputed property for the last more than 15 years. He was not in any way connected with the judgment-debtors and was not resisting the delivery of possession on their behalf. He was independently owner of the disputed property and had a right to resist the delivery of possession of the cotton factory, wherein heavy machinery has been installed. He prayed that he should not be dispossessed.