GURHARBANS SINGH Vs. BALWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of the instant revision petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought the setting aside of order dated May 15, 2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Tarn Taran (Annexure P-4) vide which an application for staying the execution proceedings during the pendency of an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short 'Code') filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated May 30, 2003; has been dismissed.

(2.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for possession land measuring 83 kanals and 5 marlas fully detailed and described in para 1 (i) of the instant revision, which was decreed ex-parte vide judgment and decree dated May 30, 2003. In order to get the afore-said decree implemented and executed, respondent No.1/plaintiff filed an execution petition. It has further been averred by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on February 26, 2016, petitioner went to the Halqa Patwari of village Kasel for some official work and at that time he was informed by the Halqa Patwari that respondent No.1/plaintiff has obtained an ex-parte decree against him, and is trying to get the possession of the land by getting warrants of possession. Immediately, he enquired in the matter and obtained the certified copy of the judgment and decree dated May 30, 2003 and moved an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside the same. Thereafter, petitioner moved an application for staying the execution proceedings filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff till the final disposal of an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code, which has been dismissed vide impugned order.

(3.) While assailing the impugned order it has further been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that executing Court while passing the impugned order, has ignored the basic principles of equity, justice and fair play. In fact, respondent No.1/plaintiff in connivance with Ram Singh has cheated the petitioner and further proforma respondents by creating the forged power of attorney and believing the same to be true and genuine and executed by the respondent No.1 in favour of Ram Singh. As a matter of fact, an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code is pending adjudication and there are good chances that the same be allowed for the grounds taken therein, in case an ex-parte judgment and decree dated May 30, 2003 is implemented/executed, the very purpose of the application would stand defeated. To buttress his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the pronouncement passed by this Court in the case of Davinder Pal Singh and another v. Narinder Pal Singh and others; 2016 (3) LAR 375.