Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajni Devi vs Krishan Lal And Another on 29 October, 2025
CR-7609-2025 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
130 CR-7609-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 29.10.2025
Rajni Devi ...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
Krishan Lal and another ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Kamal Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed by third party objector/wife of Judgment Debtor against the order dated 01.08.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kalka in case bearing EXE-20 of 2019 dated 30.08.2019 titled as Krishan Lal Vs. Kamaljeet, whereby the third-party objection filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the warrant of possession has been issued.
2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no residential house except the house in dispute i.e. House No. 169, near Forest Colony, Pinjore, Kalka. The petitioner is separated from her husband/Judgment Debtor. This property was received by the petitioner from her husband by virtue of a Panchayat Rajinama/Settlement Deed dated 01.04.2007 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner being owner and settled possessor of the house No. 169 is a DIVYANSHI 2025.11.06 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7609-2025 (O&M) 2 necessary party to the execution proceedings. However, being a pardanashin lady, petitioner could not independently contest or institute proceedings previously. The petitioner came to know of the execution proceedings when Bailiff arrived on 23.07.2024; whereafter the petitioner had immediately filed objections.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further reiterates that the petitioner, being a pardanashin lady, faced inherent social and cultural constraints in appearing personally before the Ld. Executing Court. The Executing Court was duty-bound to ensure that her rights were protected and she was given appropriate assistance to file objections and lead evidence. Ignoring her status and dismissing the objections summarily constitutes a clear violation of equity and natural justice, as recognized in various judgments protecting vulnerable parties in civil proceedings.
4. He, accordingly, prays that the present Civil Revision Petition be allowed; and impugned order be set aside.
5. No other argument is raised on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.
6. Perusal of the record of the case shows that plaintiff/Decree Holder/respondent No.1 herein, had filed a Suit under Section 6 of Specific relief Act 1963 for possession of 21 sq. yards shown by words ABEF out of house no. 169, B-III, Forest Colony, Main (Uppar) Bazar, DIVYANSHI Pinjore, shown by words ABCD in the site plan situated in the revenue 2025.11.06 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7609-2025 (O&M) 3 estate of Pinjore, Tehsil Kalka which was taken by the defendant under the shadow of warrant of possession from the plaintiff illegally unlawfully without any right and title. Vide judgment and decree dated 10.03.2015, the said suit was decreed. Appeal against the said judgment dated 10.03.2015 was also dismissed on 11.01.2017; and RSA against the same was dismissed on 02.03.2020. Accordingly, plaintiff/Decree Holder/Respondent No.1 filed Execution Petition in which warrants of possession of half portion of suit property was issued and warrants of attachment for recovery of mesne profit was also issued. Subsequently vide order dated 20.08.2022, objections of the Judgment Debtor were dismissed. Vide order dated 01.10.2022 application of the Judgment Debtor under Order 21 Rule 35 CPC was dismissed. Application for appointment of Local Commissioner was also dismissed. Vide order dated 04.10.2022, the Executing Court granted permission to break open lock of the property. Vide order dated 04.03.2024, the Civil Revision No. 4488 of 2022 filed by the Judgment Debtor challenging above said order dated 04.10.2022, was also dismissed.
7. Although, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is residing separately from Judgment Debtor/her husband, however, except for the bald statement of the petitioner, there is nothing on record to indicate the same. In fact, it is categorically recorded in the impugned order that no contention was made by the petitioner to this effect. Learned Executing Court has DIVYANSHI further recorded that as per report of Ahlmad, notice issued to the 2025.11.06 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7609-2025 (O&M) 4 Judgment Debtor was served upon the petitioner; whereupon counsel for the petitioner had put in appearance for Judgment Debtor. Thus, contention of the petitioner that she came to know of the present execution proceedings only on 23.07.2024 when the Bailiff came, is incorrect. Even the contention of the petitioner that she could not contest the execution proceedings as she is pardanashin lady, does not inspire confidence and is not supported by any other material on record.
8. Learned Executing Court has also correctly held that the alleged Panchayati Razinama dated 01.04.2007 cannot be relied upon as per which Judgment Debtor had relinquished his rights in the suit house in favour of the petitioner alongwith possession, as the same does not mention scribe of the document neither does it bear the stamp of Panchayat and is not accompanied by any supporting documents. Even otherwise, during the entire history of long drawn litigation between the parties since inception of the suit, no such objection was ever taken by the Judgment Debtor. It was in this background that the learned Executing Court dismissed the objections of the petitioner with costs of Rs.2,500/-.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to controvert or dispute the above said facts and findings.
10. In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfere in the order dated 01.08.2025 (Annexure P-1). The present Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.
DIVYANSHI 2025.11.06 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7609-2025 (O&M) 5
11. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
29.10.2025 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
DIVYANSHI
2025.11.06 11:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document