Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jai Dev Aggarwal vs Surender Kumar Chaudhary & Another on 2 August, 2013
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR NO.3359 OF 2007
DATE OF DECISION : 2nd AUGUST 2013
Jai Dev Aggarwal
.... Petitioner
Versus
Surender Kumar Chaudhary & another
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
****
Present : Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.2
None for respondent no.1.
****
L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
Jai Dev Aggarwal-decree holder (DH) has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 09.02.2007 passed by executing Court thereby partly allowing objections filed by respondent no.2-objector in execution petition instituted by petitioner against respondent no.1-judgment debtor (JD) and thereby dismissing the execution petition filed by the petitioner-DH.
Ejectment petition filed by petitioner against respondent no.1 under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) 1973 (in short, the 'Act') against respondent no.1 alleging him to be tenant over the demised property under the petitioner, was allowed by Rent Controler vide judgment dated 22.02.2003. Petitioner filed execution petition for executing the ejectment order. Respondent no.2 (third party) filed objections apparently CR No.3359 of 2007 -2- under Order 21 Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) alleging that respondent no.2-objector is in possession of the demised property and respondent no.1-JD never in possession thereof under the petitioner and therefore the ejectment order is not executable against the objector.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Under Section 18 of the Act, ejectment order passed under the Act is executable by Civil Court as if it were a decree or order of the civil Court. Thus the execution petition was filed in Civil Court for execution of the ejectment order. Respondent no.2 filed objections under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC claiming independent right, independently of respondent no.1-JD. The said objections have been allowed partly by the executing Court by way of impugned order. According to Order 21 Rule 103 CPC any such order (passed under Order 21 Rule 100 CPC on objections preferred under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC) has the force as if it were a decree and subject to some conditions as to appeal or otherwise as a decree.
Consequently, impugned order of the executing Court is decree in view of Order 21 Rule 103 CPC. Consequently, in view of Section 96 CPC, the said order is appealable and, therefore, instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable to assail the impugned order which is appealable.
As a necessary consequence, without going into merits of the rival claims, the instant revision petition is dismissed being not maintainable.
2nd August, 2013 (L. N. MITTAL)
'raj' JUDGE
Raj Kumar
2013.08.05 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh