MOHINDER RAM Vs. KARTAR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment, I am disposing of two Civil Revision Petitions bearing Civil Revision No. 2294 of 1997 and Civil Revision No. 2295 of 1997 as the points of fact and law raised in these petitions are similar. Civil Revision No. 2294 of 1997 has been directed against the order dated 12th March, 1997, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kurukshetra in Execution No. 10. 8. 95 and Civil Revision No. 2295 of 1997 has been directed against the order of the same date passed in Execution No. 11. 8. 95. In both the petitions, the application filed by the judgment-debtor for adjourning the execution proceedings sine die has been allowed and the proceedings in both the execution cases have been adjourned. For the purpose of judgment, facts of Civil Revision No. 2294 of 1997 have been taken.

(2.) THE admitted facts of the case are that the suit filed by the petitioner-decree- holder for possession by way of pre-emption of the land in dispute was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 11th February, 1992. The appeal filed by the respondent-judgment-debtor was dismissed by the lower appellate Court on 31st August, 1994. The second appeal filed by the Judgment-debtor was dismissed by this Court on 10th March, 1995. Even the Special Leave Petition filed by the Judgment-debtor was dismissed on 21st July, 1995 and Review Petition against the aforesaid order was also dismissed by the Supreme Court the petitioner-decree-holder instituted execution proceedings before the learned Executing Court. The respondent-judgment-debtor filed objection before the Executing Court which were dismissed on 5th April, 1996. Thereafter, the judgment-debtor-respondent filed the revision bearing Civil Revision No. 1408 of 1996 which was dismissed on 9th October, 1996. The aforesaid order dated 9th October, 1996 has been challenged by the judgment-debtor in the Supreme Court.

(3.) SHRI Sanjeev Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the judgment-debtor-respondent submitted that as per his instructions, stay had not been granted by the Supreme Court but the application seeking stay has been ordered to be heard along with the main case. It was in these circumstances that arguments were held on merits of these petitions.