POHLO RAM SHARMA Vs. NARINDER SINGH RANDHAWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Execution Second appeal has been filed against the order dated 15.11.2000 passed by the learned executing Court as affirmed by the learned lower Appellate Court dismissing the objections filed by the appellants under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE appellant-objectors filed an objection petition against the attachment of land measuring 16 kanals 7 marlas comprised in Khasra No. 72/16/4(0-16), 17/1(2-18), 25/1(3-3), 16/2(3-1) and 24(6-6) situated in village Udho Nangal, Tehsil and District Amritsar and sheller built upon the same under the name and style of Shakti Rice Mills.

(3.) THE objections were contested and preliminary objections were raised to the effect that the objectors being 3rd party have no right to challenge the decree and, therefore, the objections were not maintainable. It was claimed that the objectors had full knowledge about the pendency of the case in which the decree has been passed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It was further claimed that original judgment-debtors - Hardial Singh and Tarlochan Singh filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and after hearing the parties, the appeal was dismissed. Further objections were also taken. It was also claimed that Janta Rice Mills was working and carrying on business at the spot by merely changing the name as Shakti Rice Mills. It was also the case of the decree-holders that filing of objections was an attempt to misguide the Court by playing manipulation. It was also claimed that Shakti Rice Mills had no right, tile or interest in the property and they could not file any objections. It was also pleaded that objections have been filed at the instance of the original judgment-debtors - Hardial Singh and Tarlochan Singh. It was also maintained that the attachment order was legal and valid. It was claimed that as per report of the Local Commissioner, M/s. Janta Rice Mills is still in existence at the spot and M/s. Shakti Rice Mills has no right, tile or interest in the land in question. It was also claimed that the land for the sheller was contributed by the decree- holders and the transfer, if any, was made pending suit which was instituted on 2.8.1974 i.e. more than a year prior to the alleged change. It was further claimed that the objectors were fully aware of the litigation between the parties and were bound by the same.