TEK CHAND Vs. JAI NAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of both the above mentioned Revision Petitions, against the orders dated 16.5.2005 passed by the executing Court, dismissing the objections filed by the judgments debtors and ordering the issuance of warrant of attachment against the property of the judgment debtors.

(2.) Civil Revision No.65 of 2005 is against the order dated 16.5.2005 dismissing the objection petition of the judgment debtors, whereas Civil Revision No. 98 of 2005 is against both the orders dated 16.5.2005, dismissing the objection petition of the judgment debtors and directing the issuance of warrant of attachment against the property of the judgment debtors.

(3.) Jai Nand Sharma Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction etc. against the defendants. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 1.12.1993. However, in appeal filed by the Jai Nand Sharma, plaintiff, appeal was partly allowed by the learned District Judge, Shimla on 1.6.1998 and the defendants were restrained through a permanent prohibitory injunction not to discharge the used and foul water of their newly constructed house and not allow the Rain water cascading on their newly constructed house to flow on and over the property of the plaintiff. It was further made clear that this injunction would impliedly mean the issuance of a mandatory injunction to the defendants to provide proper drainage system for their newly constructed house, so that the used water and the rain water of their newly constructed house does not flow on and over the adjoining property of the plaintiff. To that extent the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 1.6 1998 passed by the learned District Judge, both sides felt aggrieved and filed regular second appeals in this Court bearing RSA No. 436 of 1998 and RSA No. 449 of 1998, which were admitted and are pending in this court. In the mean while, Jai Nand Sharma plaintiff. DH filed execution petition for implementing the aforesaid decree dated 1.6.1998 passed by the learned District Judge, in the said execution petition, the judgment debtors filed objections. The said objections were contested by the decree holder by filing reply. After hearing both sides the learned executing Court dismissed the objections, vide impugned order dated 16.5.2005 and by a consequential order of even dale ordered attachment of the property of the judgment debtors. Both these orders dated 16.5.2005 are under challenge in the aforementioned civil revision petitions in this Court filed by the judgment debtors.