TARLOCHAN SINGH Vs. SHIVDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 27.4.1998 passed by Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala whereby the Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the present petitioners filed before him against the order dated 29.10.1993 passed SDO(C)-cum-Collector, Sub Division, Ludhiana and whereby the Collector accepted the appeal of the respondent filed before him against the order dated 1.6.1993 passed by Tehsildar.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that land measuring 40 kanals 8 marlas out of 161 kanal 8 marlas was purchased by the respondent in the year 1967. The petitioners remained in forcible possession till 1976. Thereafter, in view of Civil Court decree in favour of the respondent, he was given his share that some distance from the road. In 1992, the respondent applied for partition to the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade. Mode of partition was drawn up which said that the partition was be as per the possession. He went in appeal to the Collector who modified the mode of partition stating that the mode of partition should be as per the quality and value of the land and he remanded the case back to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade vide his order dated 29.10.1993. The petitioner went in appeal to the Commissioner, who dismissed their case on 30.4.1998. Now the petitioners have come in revision to this Court on the same grounds as were taken before the Commissioner.

(3.) THE revision is dismissed with an exemplary cost of Rs. 1 lakh to be paid by the petitioners to the respondent. In support of the costs the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given the verdict which I quote from (2000)6 SCC-120 in which para 13 reads that it is distressing to note that many unscrupulous litigants in order to circumvent orders of Courts adopt dubious ways and take recourse to ingenious methods including filing of fraudulent litigation to defeat the orders of Courts. Such tendency deserves to be taken serious note of and curbed by imposing of exemplary costs. As reported in 2004(4) RCR(Civil) 146, it has been held that "Civil Procedure Code, Section 47 - Civil Procedure Code, Order 21 Rule 2(i) and 97-Execution of decree of ejectment - Judgment debtor raising frivolous objections which delayed execution for more than 6 years - Judgment debtor to pay Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioner was under vicarious liability to give the respondent his due share in the property. Instead by filing frivolous litigation he is denying the decree holder from enjoying the fruits of his decree. Announced. Petition dismissed.