MAYA DEVI Vs. SWARAN KANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant second appeal, the appellants who are third party objectors in the execution petition against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.1986 passed in Civil Suit No. 74 dated 14.09.1981, have sought setting aside of order dated 20.11.2015, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby their written objections were dismissed and the judgment dated 15.12.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide which their appeal (MCA No. 392 dated 01.12.2015) against the said order was also dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant-objector(s) argued that in the execution of respondents i.e. the legal heirs of Swaran Kanta, plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.1986, the warrants of possession were issued. In pursuance thereof, the decree-holders came at the spot to take possession. Only then the appellant-objector(s) came to know that warrants of possession were issued against their house having no connection with the aforesaid judgment and decree, because the same was situated in Khasra No. 797 distinct from Khasra No. 791 for which the said decree was passed. Hence, the appellant-objector(s) filed written objections, but the same were dismissed without giving them any proper opportunity of hearing by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 20.11.2015. Appeal filed by the appellant-objector(s) was also dismissed wrongly by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 15.12.2015. Both the Courts below have failed to consider the fact that the decree was passed for Khasra No. 791 and not for Khasra No. 797 in which their house was situated. It was further contended that issuance of warrants of possession qua the property of the appellant-objector(s) was totally erroneous and against the law. Both the Courts below have failed to appreciate that the appellant-objector(s) were never a party to the litigation filed by Swaran Kanta. The appellantobjector(s) had purchased the property from Chanan Ram which falls in Khasra No. 797 vide registered sale deed No. 11992 dated 13.10.1987 (Annexure A-1) and residing in the same since then peacefully and continuously. Mutation was also sanctioned in their favour by the Revenue Authorities. Both the Courts below have also failed to appreciate that no adverse order quo was ever passed against the appellant-objector(s) nor the sale deed in their favour was ever challenged in any Court of law. The impugned order and the judgment of the Courts below were not well reasoned and speaking. If the appellant-objector(s) would be dispossessed, in that event they would suffer an irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in any manner.

(3.) After giving my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant-objector(s), I find the present appeal completely devoid of any merits for the reasons to follow: