RAM SINGH Vs. SUKH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the executing Court dated April 29, 1989, whereby the judgment -debtor was directed to restore the possession of the premises; in dispute; failing which proceedings to attach properties of judgment -debtors and for their civil imprisonment were to be taken.

(2.) THERE was a decree dated August 7, 1987, for the grant of the permanent injunction to the effect that the Defendants were restrained from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiff with the suit property. The decree -holder filed the execution application under Order XXXI Rule 32, Code of Civil Procedure, alleging that the judgment -debtor had violated the said decree and, therefore, the proceedings be taken against him under the said provisions The said application was opposed on behalf of the judgment debtors. The executing Court found that there was no merit in the objections filed by the judgment debtor and, therefore, directed to restore the possession of the property in dispute to the decree holder by May 27, 1989 failing which proceedings to attach the properties and for their civil imprisonment were to be taken.

(3.) IN Bagicha Singh's case (supra) the matter was considered at length and the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sarup Singh's base (Supra) was also considered and it was held that it was no longer a good law in view of the Supreme Court decision in Krishan Murari Lal's case : A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1233 and the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Radha Ram v. Municipal Committee, Barnala (1983) 85 P.L.R. 21 (F.B.). It was held therein that the mere sale of the attached property of the judgment debtor and the payment of compensation in lieu of mesne profits would not meet the ends of justice until possession of the land in dispute is also restored to the decree -holder. It was further held therein that even in a declaratory decree, direction can be given for compliance of all matters which are necessary consequences of the declaratory decree. Even those directions have been held to be executable upto the highest Court. Even if Sub -rule (5) of Rule 32 of Order XXI, does not come to the aid of the decree -holder, on general principles, the executing Court or the High Court has the jurisdiction to order that the possession of the land in dispute be restored to the decree holder, thus neither law nor larger principles of justice come in the way in getting the restoration of possession to the decree -holder in these proceedings.