PARKASH SONI Vs. J C CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition challenging the order, passed by Sub -Judge (C. J. M.), Srinagar in execution case No: 31 of 1983 on 4 -6 -1984 wherein the objections of the Judgment -debtor are not taken up and despite the notice directed to be issued by the executing court for filing objections under Order 21 Rule 22. The executing court after adjourning the case for several dates passed the order impugned on 4 -6 -1984, for the execution of the warrant of possession. In the present revision petition. Mr. Raina counsel for the petitioner attacks the order mainly on two grounds: -

(2.) ON going through the record and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent -decree holder, it appears that by way of a previous suit the petitioner -judgment -debtor so far tried to delay the execution of the decree and the action of the judgment -debtor in delaying the impugned decree is based on malafides. However, having gone through the facts of the case and the points regarding the existence of the title over the demised premises, learned counsel for the respondent also points out that earlier he got the extension retrospectively and at present also the correspondence is going on. This question of fact is to be determined on evidence, which cannot be taken at this stage in this revision petition. Since the objection goes to the root of the case and the executability of the decree. The revision is avowed to a limited extent only to facilitate the judgment -debtor and the decree -holder to concentrate over the point of, the right of executability of the decree relating to the suit premises. The judgment -debtor cannot be permitted to drag on the litigation any further in the grab of the right which he can establish by an independent suit. Thus the revision is allowed only to this extent that the executing court before proceeding to execute the order passed on 4 -6 -1984 should give an opportunity to the petitioner -judgment -debtor to adduce evidence without recourse to the summoning of witnesses regarding the executability of the decree. The decree -holder may also be permitted to show his existing right. This all should be done within a period of two months from today. The parties are directed to appear before the executing court on 26th of July, 1984. Meanwhile learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Raina undertakes to withdraw the appeal pending before the District judge, Srinagar. The record be sent back to the District Judge, to do the needful. The record of the executing court be also transmitted immediately to the executing court, Parties to bear their own cost.