NAGAR PALIKA NADBAI Vs. BRIJ LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant revision petition under Section 115 CPC is preferred against the order dt.13/05/2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior division), Nadbai, District Bharatpur in Civil Execution No.13/2003 whereby the execution petition filed by the decree holder was allowed and further an order of attachment of property worth Rs.50,000/- was passed.

(2.) Brief facts emerging from the record are that a suit for permanent injunction was filed by the decree holder-respondent against Nagar Palika, Nadbai-the judgment debtor which was decreed vide judgment and decree dt.10/08/1977 and such judgment and decree attained finality since it was not further assailed. By the force of the judgment and decree, the defendant, petitioner-judgment debtor herein was restrained by a decree of permanent injunction not to establish any way (Rasta) upon the property marked in red colour in the map exhibit-1. For the execution of such decree, the respondents filed an execution petition stating that on 25/02/2002 the judgment debtor in defiance of the judgment and decree demolished a shop, kotha, chabutra etc. constructed upon the property for which a restrained order was passed in spite of the service of a registered notice by the decree holder upon the judgment debtor on 01/04/2000. It was further asserted that an application dt.01/02/2002 was also submitted by the decree holder to the judgment debtor drawing their attention towards the decree passed by the Court and hence it was stated in the execution petition that as the act of demolition by the judgment debtor was intentional, conscious and motivated and in utter defiance of the judgment and decree, therefore, the decree holder claimed restoration of the position of property as it existed before 25/02/2002 and in addition claimed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and further to attach the property worth Rs.5,00,000/- of the judgment debtor and to commit the defaulting officers to civil prison for six months.

(3.) The judgment debtor refuted the allegations of the execution petition by submitting reply of the same. The main contentions raised in such reply were that the decree had become in-executable by the lapse of time., there was no decree in favour of the legal heirs of Brij Lal, that no demolition was carried out by them but a boundary wall was removed by the applicants themselves and no way (Rasta) was established by the judgment debtor. It was also asserted that PWD (Public Works Department) had given notices to the applicants to remove the encroachment which fell in the road line.