BALWAN SINGH Vs. SUDESH DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present revision petition is to the order dated 18.11.2010, whereby the execution application of the decree holder, has been dismissed by the Executing Court on the ground that the warrant of possession was duly executed earlier and the report was given by the revenue officials that on the spot possession of the plaintiff -applicant had been restored. The other reasoning given is that the Executing Court cannot repeatedly decide the question of possession and encroachment and once warrant of possession has been received back, duly executed, further warrant of possession, cannot be issued. The objections of the decree holder were, thus, dismissed in the execution petition, being fully satisfied by way of execution of the warrant of possession.

(2.) THERE is no dispute regarding the fact that a decree dated 23.08.2004 (Annexure P1) was passed, whereby the defendants in the said suit were restrained from interfering in the suit property, which was measuring 77 kanals 14 marlas, situated in Village Kemla, details of which were mentioned in the decree. The plaintiffs filed execution petition on 30.10.2004, in which notice was issued.

(3.) A perusal of the record, which has been received, would go on to show that the report of the warrant of possession was not received on 07.05.2005 and the case was adjourned to 23.08.2005. The report of warrant of possession was received on 23.08.2005 and the case was adjourned to 13.12.2005, for consideration of the said report and the objections, if any. The petitioners filed an application under Order 21 Rule 32 on 14.10.2006, in which notice was issued to the other side for 03.02.2007 and the proceedings were kept pending for service of the defendants. On 24.01.2009, judgment debtor No.2 was proceeded against ex parte and others were directed to be served through munadi as well as through ordinary process.