Punjab-Haryana High Court
Devinder Kumar Singla Son Of Late Sh. ... vs Chander Bhushan Anand Son Of Sh. B.C. ... on 2 July, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
C.R. No.3615 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.3615 of 2012
Date of Decision.02.07.2012
Devinder Kumar Singla son of late Sh. B.L. Singla, 29, Greenview Patiala,
Tehsil and District, Patiala presently residing at 814, Sector 2, Panchkula
.....Petitioner
Versus
Chander Bhushan Anand son of Sh. B.C. Anand and others
.....Respondents
Present: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate
for the petitioner.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
-.-
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)
1. The civil revision is filed against the dismissal of the application filed by the defendant for taking up the issue of maintainability of suit on the ground of bar of res judicata as a preliminary issue. The petitioner's contention is that between the same parties, there had been already an action for ejectment, which was concluded upto the Supreme Court when the plaintiff has been ordered to be evicted. The suit filed by the plaintiff is resisted on the ground, inter alia, that the issue of validity of the sale in favour of the petitioner-defendant has already been concluded and that the suit itself is a clever ploy to defeat and delay the execution of the ejectment order obtained by the defendant.
2. I find that there is no interim order of injunction or restraint against the defendant from executing the order of ejectment C.R. No.3615 of 2012 -2- already obtained, which has been confirmed upto the Supreme Court. The petitioner's grievance is that in the application for execution filed, the plaintiff has taken up the objection of the pendency of the suit. There cannot be an objection for executing the decree lawfully obtained and if there is any such objection, the same shall be considered by the Executing Court and appropriate orders shall be passed. The disposal of the application by the trial Court that the issue of res judicata need not be considered as a preliminary issue, in my view, does not suffer from any vice and the same would not require to be modified.
3. It is hereby clarified that the petitioner shall be at liberty to execute the order of ejectment, which he has obtained and in the manner of execution if there is any obstruction, the Executing Court shall pass an appropriate order on merits without minding the pendency of the civil suit between the same parties. Without prejudice to these observations, the trial Court shall take up the case instituted by the respondent and endeavour to dispose it of as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one year.
4. The civil revision is disposed of with the above directions.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 02, 2012 Pankaj*