JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST Vs. CHARANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment debtor has filed the present petition impugning the order dated 27.1.2015 passed by the learned court below whereby the objections filed by the petitioner in execution of the decree dated 4.10.2007 filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2, were dismissed.

(2.) It is a case in which the suit filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2/ plaintiffs for declaration was decreed on 4.10.2007 to the extent that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 15,56,010/- to the decree holders subject to the decree-holders relinquishing their rights in the property within one month. The petitioner was not aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the Court below, however, in appeal filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2, the decree was modified vide order dated 21.10.2010 to the extent that respondent nos. 1 and 2 were held entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till its refund. It is in the execution of the decree dated 4.10.2007, that the objections were filed by the petitioner, which were dismissed vide impugned order dated 27.1.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decree passed by the trial court was conditional. It was mentioned therein that the suit for recovery was decreed for payment of amount mentioned therein, however, to claim the amount, the plaintiffs/ decree-holders were to relinquish their rights in the plot within a period of one month from the date of the decree i.e. 4.10.2007.

(3.) The Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.10.2010, awarded interest to the decree-holders, however, other conditions laid down in the decree dated 4.10.2007 were upheld. Once the decree holders failed to submit any letter to the petitioner relinquishing their rights in the property, the decree had become un-executable, hence, the objections filed by the petitioner were required to be accepted and the execution should have been dismissed. However, on the status of the plot, which was initially allotted to the decree-holders, counsel was fair enough to state that the allotment made in favour of respondent nos. 1 and 2/ decree-holders was cancelled even during the pendency of the suit before the trial Court and allotment had been made to some other party on lease for a period of 15 years.