UIT Vs. CIVIL JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE UIT, Bikaner is aggrieved by the order dtd. 27.11.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner in Execution Case No. 9/2004 -Kamlesh Gupta V/s UIT whereby the executing Court has ordered attachment of office furniture of the Secretary of the UIT, Bikaner and bank account in purported execution of decree dtd. 21.3.1986 in civil suit No. 26/1985 -Smt. Kamlesh Gupta V/s. UIT, which was filed for injunction by the respondent Smt. Kamlesh Gupta in respect of plot of land for which the said plaintiff claimed regularisation also from the UIT, Bikaner. The execution application was filed much belatedly by the plaintiff in respect of decree of the year 1986 in the year 2004. The learned counsel for the defendant, Mr. J.L. Purohit, Sr. Advocate submitted that in the meanwhile on 26.10.2002, the plot No. 2, Adarsh Colony, Bikaner measuring 39 x 70=2730 sq. ft. was allotted to a third party, one Subba Rao S/o. Sh. Chhabil Das. The lease -deed was executed on 26.10.2002 and on this allotted land, he has constructed his own house. He submitted that the execution application was filed belatedly and though the plaintiff Smt. Kamlesh Gupta had filed application for regularisation, which was also considered and she deposited the amount in pursuance of the same also, but since no patta was issued in her favour of the same plot, the said plot allotted Subba Rao cannot be cancelled. He, however fairly submitted that the plaintiff -decree holder Kamlesh Gupta can approach the UIT for allotment of some alternative plot in the same colony or other colony of same measurement and the suitable plot will be allotted to her in accordance with the compromise terms on which the original suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff to the respondent. He, however, submitted that the impugned order for attachment of office furniture and bank account passed by the learned executing court below deserves to be set aside.

(2.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent -decree holder Ms. Kamlesh Gupta, Mr. Suresh Shrimali however submitted that constantly the proceedings were undertaken by the plaintiff for regularisation of plot and the money in question was also deposited in the year 2002 with the judgment debtor -UIT, Bikaner to issue patta in favour of the decree holder in terms of lease -deed but the same was not done, therefore, the impugned order for execution is justified.