SUBHASH CHAND Vs. BHIM SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 15.11.2017 passed by learned Civil Judge, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. in an application under Order 21 Rule 11(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure registered as Execution No. 14/17, is under challenge in this petition.

(2.) The judgment and decree, Annexure P-1 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 157/10 not only affirmed by learned lower appellate Court but also this Court as well as the Apex Court, has resulted in initiating execution proceedings at the instance of respondent-decree holder. The petitioner-JD has objected to the execution proceedings on the grounds inter-alia that without there being any decree of possession passed in favour of DH, he cannot be put in possession of the suit land. The sale of the suit land by their father and in view of partition thereof behind the back of the plaintiff-JD as he was not served in the partition proceedings, the suit land should have been declared joint of the parties. The applicant, one of the decree holders, has only part interest in the suit land to the extent of his share and not in the entire suit land. Also that, in view of the provisions contained under Sec. 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, the DH, who is not an agriculturist of the State of Himachal Pradesh is not entitled to the possession of the suit land except for the permission of the appropriate authority. Learned trial Judge on appreciation of the given facts and circumstances and on perusal of the judgment and decree sought to be executed has answered all the objections in negative and has dismissed the same.

(3.) Mr. Suneet Goel, learned counsel representing the petitioner-JD has strenuously contended that the decree for the relief of possession of the suit land is not executable.