Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paras Ram vs Raghbir Dass & Others on 27 May, 2010
CR No. 3683 of 2010
-1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No. 3683 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 27.5.2010
Paras Ram
.......... Petitioner
Versus
Raghbir Dass & others
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present : Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
This revision petition is direction against the order dated 8.3.2010, passed by the learned executing Court, vide which the objections filed by the petitioner have been ordered to be summarily rejected.
The petitioner / judgment debtor was ordered to be evicted by the learned Rent Controller in the year 1995. His attempt to remain in possession failed, as his appeal before the learned appellate Authority and revision before this Court were dismissed.
The decree-holder i.e. the landlord moved an application for execution of the decree. The petitioner filed objections by taking a plea, that the petitioner / judgment debtor was not in possession qua which the order was passed by the learned Rent Controller. It was asserted, that petitioner was in possession of Khasra No. 784, which was under the ownership of Improvement Trust, and was not under CR No. 3683 of 2010 -2- the decree-holder. In spite of the fact, that objections were filed on May 26, 2005, the landlord / decree-holder did not file any reply to the objections for all these years, but the learned executing Court dismissed the objections summarily.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the impugned order cannot be sustained, in view of the fact, that the averments made in the objections petition went unrebutted, therefore, were liable to be accepted.
If the averments made are accepted, then no other conclusion, but the one that the decree was unexecutable, can only be drawn. The impugned order passed by the learned executing Court, therefore, cannot be sustained.
It is further the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that once a specific stand was taken, that he was not in possession of the property from which his eviction order was passed, the Court was required to determine the question regarding ownership of khasra No. 784, and status of the petitioner, by permitting the parties to lead evidence. The objections could not be summarily rejected, as done by the learned executing Court.
On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The objections which are frivolous can be summarily rejected by the learned executing Court, specially when these are raised by the judgment debtor. It is not in dispute, that the plea raised was the one taken by the petitioner in defence in eviction proceedings before the learned Rent Controller. The stand of petitioner was, that he was not tenant under the CR No. 3683 of 2010 -3- landlord, as he was in possession of Khasra No. 784, which did not belong to the landlord.
This plea was not accepted by the learned Rent Controller, by recording a finding, that the property in possession of the petitioner, is the one and the same, which was rented out to him by the landlord.
Once the learned Rent Controller had rejected the plea, which was affirmed upto the Hon'ble High Court, the executing Court could not go in the matter again. No fault can be found with the rejection of the objections summarily, as the objections were the same as were taken as defence in the main eviction petition filed by the landlord / decree-holder.
No merit.
Dismissed.
27.5.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE