BHAGAT RAM Vs. BESRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has been preferred by the decree holder against the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu, dismissing the application filed by the decree holder under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure for initiating action in accordance with law against the judgment debtor.

(2.) SUIT was filed by the decree-holder against the judgment debtors praying for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction and in the alternative for possession of the suit land as described in the plaint. The suit was decreed by the learned Trial Court on 25.5.1996 in the following terms:

(3.) THE petition was resisted on a number of grounds by the judgment debtors. They pleaded that there is no disobedience of the decree. Both the parties led evidence in the matter in support of their respective contentions. During the pendency of the petition, an application under Order 26 Rules 9 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed before the Executing Court by the judgment debtors praying that a Local Commissioner be appointed to ascertain as to whether the decree holders allegation that the judgment debtors had disobeyed the judgment and decree be ascertained by verifying the facts on the spot. It was alleged that offending construction regarding which complaint had been made, was in the land owned by the judgment debtors and was not a part of the suit land which was subject matter of the injunction and this fact could be ascertained by the Local Commissioner The learned Executing Court, appointed Naib Tehsildar as a Local Commissioner for demarcating the land in khasra No. 4681 and 4682 and to submit his report to the court. Demarcation was carried out and detailed objections were filed by the decree holders against the demarcation urging various illegalities which had been committed by the Local Commissioner. On 18.5.2001, the matter was taken up by the learned Executing Court, and after consideration of the report, the application was dismissed. For reaching this conclusion, the learned Executing Court has observed that from a close scrutiny of the record of the case and the report, it was clear that the Local Commissioner had submitted a comprehensive report which ought to be accepted.