Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sh. Jarnail Singh vs Jarnail Singh And Another on 20 June, 2022
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 20th DAY OF JUNE, 2022
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL
CIVIL MISC. PETITION MAIN (ORIGINAL) No.
175 of 2021
Between:-
1. SH. JARNAIL SINGH, S/O
SH. BHAG SINGH, R/O
GARG NIWAS,
ANADALE, SHIMLA-
171003 (H.P.).
2. SH. JASBIR SINGH, S/O
SH. BHAG SINGH, R/O
GARG NIWAS,
ANADALE, SHIMLA-
171003 (H.P.).
...PETITIONERS
(By M/S SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA &
NEHA RANA, ADVOCATES)
AND
TEJESHWAR KUMAR
KASHYAP, SON OF SH.
DHARAM DASS
KASHYAP, R/O
HARVINDER COTTAGE,
ANADALE, SHIMLA-
171003 (H.P.).
...RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI R.L. CHAUDHARY,
ADVOCATE)
Whether approved for reporting? No.
______________________________________________________
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the
following:-
::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2022 20:02:58 :::CIS
2
JUDGMENT
By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the .
Constitution of India, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:-
"(1) That the impugned order dated 15.07.2021, passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge, Shimla in Ex. P. 40-S/10 of 2017 may kindly be quashed and set aside. The petitioner may kindly be given time for the execution of the sale deed as the necessary permission under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act is still pending."
2. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that in the execution proceedings, which were filed by the Decree Holder for execution of the judgment and decree granted in favour of the Decree Holder by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-1, Shimla, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 10-S/1 of 2014, titled as Tejeshwar Kumar Kashyap Vs. Jarnail Singh and another, decided on 01.10.2016, the following order stood passed:-
"Taken up today for effective hearing as per separate office order dated 27.05.2021. Many opportunities have already been given to deposit the cost of Rs.34,478/- which has not been paid. It is an old and targetted case, therefore, the J.D. is directed to pay the aforesaid cost on the next date of hearing and the J.D. is also directed to deposit the ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2022 20:02:58 :::CIS 3 Rs.12,00,000/- by the next date of hearing and in the alternative get the sale deed registered on or before the next date of hearing. Be listed on 18.08.2021."
.
3. During the course of arguments, the Court was informed that the decree has attained finality. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law, for the reason that in the absence of the petitioner having permission to sell the aforesaid Flat in terms of Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, he cannot get the sale deed registered in favour of the Decree Holder and this fact has not been correctly appreciated by the learned Executing Court.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondent/Decree Holder has submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Executing Court, as would be evident from the fact that learned Executing Court gave option to the Judgment Debtor either to deposit Rs.12,00,000/- or to execute the sale deed, but the Judgment Debtor did neither. He submitted that filing of this petition is nothing but abuse of the process of law and the Judgment Debtor by filing such like petitions is just delaying the execution of the decree.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith.
6. This Court is of the view that there is no infirmity with the order passed by the learned Executing Court. The order starts with a ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2022 20:02:58 :::CIS 4 finding of fact recorded therein that despite many opportunities having been granted to the petitioner to deposit the cost, as stands mentioned .
therein, the same was not deposited even on the date when the order was passed. During the course of arguments, this finding recorded in the order impugned could not be disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner, though he submitted that the cost has been deposited subsequently. Further, it was directed by the learned Executing Court in the impugned order that the Judgment Debtor may either deposit an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- by the next date of hearing or in the alternative, he may get the sale deed registered before the said date. If the contention of the petitioner, as has been stated forth through counsel before this Court is taken to be a bonafide submission on his part, then nothing prevented the petitioner from depositing Rs.12,00,000/- before the learned Executing Court to show his bonafides, but this was not done by the Judgment Debtor.
7. Taking into consideration the fact that the decree stood passed in favour of the Decree Holder as far back as in the year 2016 and today we are in the mid of June, 2022, this Court concurs with Mr. Chaudhary that the petitioner/Judgment Debtor is lingering on with the evading of execution of the decree in issue. In this view of the matter, as this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order and as there is no ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2022 20:02:58 :::CIS 5 merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.
.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
June 20, 2022
(bhupender)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2022 20:02:58 :::CIS