HARBANS KAUR Vs. SANJOGTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the Executing Court dated 7.3.1988 whereby the second objection petition filed by the judgment-debtor was dismissed.

(2.) Shrimati Snajogta, claiming herself to be the widow of Lachhman Singh along with her two daughters. Shakuntala and Gulshan Bala filed a suit against Shrimati Harbans Kaur and some other persons who were in possession as tenants. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 17.1.1977 and the same was maintained up to the High Court in second appeal which was dismissed on 15.3.1984. Thereafter, the decree-holders filed execution application in which the judgment-debtor Harbans Kaur filed certain objections under Section 47. The said objections were dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated 11.4.1985. However, subsequently, the execution application was dismissed in default when neither of the party appeared on 7.4.1986. The very next day the decree-holder moved an application on 8.4.1986 for the restoration of the execution application. The same was contested on behalf of the judgment-debtor and meanwhile the decree-holder filed a fresh execution application on 24.3.1987 thereby the application for restoration was dismissed as withdrawn. The judgment-debtor Shrimati Harbans Kaur filed objection petition in the fresh execution application. The said objection petition was dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated 7.12.1987, copy of which has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure P/5. While passing that order, the learned counsel for the parties agreed for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to determine the site, possession of which was to be delivered to the decree-holders and the portion which was to be left with the judgment-debtor was ordered. However, later on, the judgment-debtor moved an application dated 17.12.1987, copy filed vide Annexure P/6 that the said order dated 7.12.1987 be cancelled as according to the averments made therein, it was wrongly stated in the order that the counsel for the parties agreed for appointment of a Local Commissioner.

(3.) Now in the fresh execution application, the same objections were again filed by the judgment-debtor which have been dismissed by the Executing Court with the observation