Punjab-Haryana High Court
Municipal Corporation vs Sanjay Chauhan Son Of Sh. Lehna Singh R/O ... on 27 July, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
C.R. No.4374 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.4374 of 2012
Date of Decision.27.07.2012
Municipal Corporation, U.T., Chandigarh through Municipal
Commissioner, Sector 17, Chandigarh
.....Petitioner
Versus
Sanjay Chauhan son of Sh. Lehna Singh r/o 217, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh
and others
.....Respondents
Present: Mr. Deepali Puri, Advocate
for the appellant.
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 revision petitioner is a judgment debtor, who pleads for an action in execution by the decree-holders complaining of an attempt by the public authority to remove them except by due process. In the suit, there had been a relief for injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs rejecting the contention taken by the petitioner-defendant that all the plaintiffs were in unlawful occupation of public property and they were liable to be removed. Their contention was that as trespassers they were not entitled to any relief of injunction and that there had been no cause of action.
2. While dealing with the issue of whether the plaintiff could be treated to be trespassers, who could be ejected without due process and by reference to Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and citing decisions of the Supreme Court and decisions of this Court, the trial C.R. No.4374 of 2012 -2- Court held that the defendants could not be judges of their own cause and if an action under the Public Premises Act had not been taken and no notice had been issued to them, the defendants cannot dispossess the plaintiff without adopting the due process of law. In the context of reference to adopt a due process of law, it is clearly revealed in paragraph 15 that the Court contemplated that without following the procedure under the Public Premises Act, a settled possession of the plaintiff, who had been claiming that they were entitled to retain possession of the property till alternative accommodation was given was being accepted by the Court. Now the argument advanced before me is verily an argument, which had been already advanced before the trial Court and it was rejected by the Court. So long as the judgment stares at the face of the judgment debtor, the petitioner shall not be permitted to take a plea that the Municipal Corporation Act makes it possible for them to remove any construction or shed or any other form of structure at a public passage or road or property. A defence, which was taken and which was rejected by the Court below will constitute res judicata even at the stage of execution in view of Section 11 Explanation VII of the Civil Procedure Code.
3. The order passed by the trial Court is perfectly justified and I see no reason to interfere with the same. The revision petition is dismissed.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 27, 2012 Pankaj*