SATISH KUMAR Vs. JAGDISH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is directed against the impugned order dtd. 20/12/2014 (Annexure P-7) and 3/1/2015 (Annexure P-8), whereby, Executing Court while allowing the application under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure summarily, issued the warrant of possession qua rooms on first floor as well as newly constructed room.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for mandatary injunction directing the petitioner-defendant to hand over the vacant possession of one room along with kitchen being part and parcel of House No.49, Shivaji Park, Yamuna Nagar, as shown in red colour in the site plan and possessed by the plaintiff as well as for damages in terms of mense profits @ Rs.150.00 per day. The aforementioned suit was, vide judgment and decree dtd. 22/4/2003, decreed by the trial Court, whereby the defendant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property within a period of two months from the date of the decree. In pursuance to the execution application bearing No.28 of 2009 filed under Order 21 Rule 11 of CPC and dismissal of the objections, the possession of the premises was handed over to the decree holder, in view of the report of Bailiff (Annexure P-4) dtd. 12/11/2014.

(3.) The respondent-decree holder after three days of the aforementioned report, submitted an application under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC, alleging that the judgment debtor had again taken the possession of the premises on the first floor by breaking open the locks and placed their goods, in utter, disrespect and disregard to the judgment and decree dtd. 22/4/2003. A complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, in this regard, was also submitted, but of no avail. The aforementioned application was duly replied vide Annexure P-6. The trial Court without framing the issues, much less, without evidence, passed the impugned order, which is totally erroneous to the settled law, much less, principles of natural justice. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-decree holder supported the impugned order and submitted that no person can be permitted to show disrespect and disregard to the order of the Court. The aforementioned fact is apparently proved and the grievance of the decree holder has been redressed by the trial Court, thus, urges this Court for dismissal of the present revision petition.