HARNEK SINGH Vs. PADAM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the execution Court dated September 17, 1986 whereby the objection petition filed by the judgment-debtor was dismissed.

(2.) Padam Kumar decree holder (respondent) got a decree for possession of the suit land against Harnek Singh, Pritam Singh and Lok Raj on 16.11.1981. It is that decree passed in that suit, whose execution is being sought by the decree holder against Harnek Singh. Harnek Singh filed an objection petition purporting to be under Section 47 and Order 21 Rule 32 of the Civil Procedure Code. That objection petition was contested on behalf of the decree holder. Before the executing Court, it was contended on behalf of the objector that the decree holder cannot get possession of the disputed land because of the decree passed in civil suit No. 420 of 1983 on 2.9.1985 titled 'Harnek Singh v. Padam Kumar'. It was also contended that Padam Kumar decree holder can get the possession of the disputed site by getting a verdict in her favour from the Rent Controller under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The executing Court repelled the said contention primarily on the basis of the statement made by Harnek Singh objector, wherein he himself denied the filing of any objection petition earlier. He also denied the very existence of the decree dated 16.11.1981.

(3.) The learned counsel for the objector submitted that the objection petition could not be dismissed summarily. The executing Court should have framed necessary issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. He referred to Section 141 of the Civil Procedure Code to contend that the procedure provided in this Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction. He also referred to a judgment of this Court in Civil Revision No. 2785 of 1987 decided on 13.5.1988.