KARAM SINGH Vs. TEK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dismissal of the JDs objection, against, the execution, of, a binding and conclusive decree, of, permanent prohibitory injunction, wherethrough, the plaintiffs' suit, for restraining the, JDs, from causing any obstruction, upon, suit khasra Nos. 1562/5, 1562/13, and, khasra No. 1567/2, as, depicted in tatima, borne in Ext. PW1/A, stood decreed, hence constrains them, to, institute the instant petition, before this Court.

(2.) The learned counsel, for the aggrieved JDs, contends with much vigor, before this Court (a) that since the execution petition, embodied in Annexure P-7, makes, a, disclosure, qua the purported obstruction, of, the suit path, rather occurring on 10.3.2013, comprised in erection of stones, by the JDs thereon, (b) and, when also the learned first appellate Court, upon, a, first appeal being reared therebefore by the plaintiffs, against the afore judgment and decree, rendered, by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Civil Suit No. 89, of 2004, (c) and, wherein they espoused, vis-a-vis, rendition of decree of mandatory injunction, for, removal by the JDs, of the afore obstruction, made upon, the suit land, (d) and, with the learned first appellate Court, hence dismissing the appeal, (e) thereupon, unless a Regular Second Appeal was filed, against declining, of, the afore relief of mandatory injunction, for, hence directing the defendants, to, remove, the afore obstruction, upon the suit land, (f) thereupon the verdict rendered vis-a-vis, the defendants, acquiring conclusivity, and, the learned Executing Court being barred, to, order for removal of obstruction, if any, created by the JDs, upon, the suit bath, (g) given the learned Executing Court hence evidently , going beyond the decree. However, the afore contention, reared before this Court, by the learned counsel for the JDs, is not accepted by this Court, (i) as the afore submission, is rested upon his, not reading the relief clause, of the plaint, wherein the plaintiffs, had espoused for rendition, of a decree, vis-a-vis, the defendants, for, the latters being restrained from causing any nuisance or obstruction, to, the plaintiffs, vis-a-vis, the user by them, , of, suit khasra numbers, as a suit path, (ii) and, when, upon, the afore relief canvassed, in, Civil Suit No.89 of 2004, a conclusive and binding decree stood granted, vis-a-vis, the plaintiffs/decree holders, (iii) thereupon, obviously, it also bears, the, necessary effect, qua any obstruction raised, upon the suit path, even during the pendency of the Civil Suit, being amenable for removal by the JDs, (iv) for thereupon, ensuring qua hence the vigor of the conclusive, and, binding decree, of, permanent and prohibitory injunction, rendered upon the afore espousal, of the plaintiffs, being not rendered both nugatory, and, redundant.

(3.) Even otherwise, the declining of relief, to, the plaintiffs-decree holders, by the learned First Appellate Court, vis-a-vis, rendition, of, decree, of, mandatory injunction, cannot operative as a bar, upon the learned Executing Court, to, efficaciously execute, the, conclusive and binding decree, of permanent prohibitory injunction, rendered vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, (a) given a reading of the apposite rendition unfolding qua only for want, of best evidence, in respect of the afore obstruction, being raised by the JDs, upon, the suit khasra numbers, hence, it, declining the decree, of mandatory injunction, and, whereas, the afore evidence being, yet, elicitable rather by the learned Executing Court.