SUDHARSHANA Vs. RAKESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the currency of this revision, the petitioner/decree -holder seeks the reversal of the order dated 9th February, 2004 propounded by Sub -Judge, Katra, whereby he has declined the prayer for the delivery of possession of land aggregating two kanals two marlas contained in Khasra No.119 located in Katra in execution of decree dated 25 -01 -1986 passed by Sub -Judge, Reasi, in suit No.23/Civil of 1976 and further for setting aside the order dated 21st May, 2001 of the Sub -Judge, Reasi. Facts relevant for the disposal of this revision, in resume, may be noticed.

(2.) A civil suit was commenced by the petitioner for possession of land explicitly delineated in the title of the revision, in the Court of Sub -Judge, Reasi. Sub -Judge, Reasi, decreed the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner in her favour, vide his judgment and decree dated 25 -01 -1986. The decree was appealed against by the judgment -debtors before the High Court in Civil Second Appeal No.21/1988, but remained unsuccessful. Aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court in the aforesaid Civil Second Appeal, the respondents/judgment debtors filed SLP No.4293 of 2000, which stood dismissed on 11 -12 -2000 and the decree of the Trial Court attained finality. The decree -holder preferred the execution proceedings seeking initiation of proceedings for execution of the decree in the Court of Sub -Judge, Reasi. After inviting objections of the judgment -debtors and hearing the parties, Sub -Judge, Reasi, rejected the plea taken in the objections and directed the delivery of the possession of land in dispute to the petitioner/decree -holder. A warrant for possession was issued and endorsed to the Collector, SDM, Reasi, directing the handing over of the possession of the land in dispute to the decree -holder or to his duly authorized representative; with a further direction to the Collector to seek police assistance, in case he finds any difficulty from the judgment -debtors in the execution of the warrant, vide his order dated 30th March, 2001.

(3.) IT is stated that the warrant, however, could not be executed, as the judgment -debtors intimated that they had obtained a stay order from the High Court in Civil Revision No.48/2001 against the order passed by the Sub -Judge, Reasi and did not permit the execution of the decree. An application, however, came to be preferred by the judgment -debtors before the Sub -Judge, Reasi, after obtaining a stay from the High Court in the aforesaid Revision, seeking the recalling of the order dated 30th March, 2001 passed by the Executing Court in File No.3/Civil and restraining the decree -holder from interfering into the property in dispute, in occupation of the judgment -debtors. This application was filed on 21 -04 -2001 by the judgment -debtors. The judgment -debtors specifically recited in the said application that the possession of the land has not been taken over from them and the judgment -debtors still continue to be in possession of land in dispute. It was also indicated in the application that the High Court has stayed the execution and prayed that the warrant of possession be recalled and the judgment -debtors be allowed to remain in possession. It was further reiterated in Para No.8 of the application that the decree -holder is unnecessarily trying to interfere with the land in possession of the judgment -debtors, as revealed from the certified copy of the application enclosed as Annexure -C. A suit also came to be filed by the judgment -debtors in the Court assailing the correctness of the decree made in judgment by Sub -Judge, Reasi in File No.23/Civil of 1976, in which ex -parte stay order was passed. The ex -parte interim injunction, however, stood vacated on 16 -02 -2002 by the Additional District Judge, Reasi, after having formed an opinion that no prima facie case exists in favour of the judgment -debtors/plaintiffs in the said suit and the execution of the decree would not cause any injury to the plaintiffs.