Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Kaur And Another vs Sham Lal And Others on 3 February, 2011
Author: A.N.Jindal
Bench: A.N.Jindal
Civil Revision No.553 of 2011(O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
...
Civil Revision No.553 of 2011(O&M) Decided on : February 03, 2011 Surjit Kaur and another ... Petitioners VERSUS Sham Lal and others ... Respondents CORAM :
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners.
A.N.JINDAL, J.-
This petition assails the order dated 17.12.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Sangrur issuing the warrant of possession in execution of the decree dated 1.4.2006 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Sangrur.
The decree was passed against Charanjit Singh, predecessor-in- interest of the objectors. Now, the petitioners being the widow and son of Charanjit Singh have filed the objection petition before the Executing Court on the ground that they were not impleaded as legal representatives at the time of filing the execution. Charanjit Singh never informed them about the passing of the decree dated 1.4.2006. Charanjit Singh had entered into an agreement regarding the shop measuring 9' x 15' only. However, he had Civil Revision No.553 of 2011(O&M) [2] never executed any agreement with the decree-holder for the room measuring 8' x 12'-9" on the ground floor at the back of the shop and the portion on the first floor.
The reply to the said objection petition was filed by the decree- holder stating that the civil suit bearing No.326 of 23.8.2003 filed by him was decreed exparte on 1.4.2006, which has reference of a room over the ground floor and the entire portion on the first floor, with regard to which the decree was passed. The petitioners being the heirs of Charanjit Singh cannot be said to be third party. They being the widow and son of the judgment-debtor cannot be said to have no knowledge of the said decree, therefore, the objections are not maintainable.
Having heard the counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of records, it transpires that earlier a decree for ejectment of the shop in front of the disputed premises had been passed against the judgment-debtor, which had never been challenged by him. Now, the petitioners, claiming themselves to be the legal heirs cannot be said to be third party being the widow and son of Charanjit Singh. They can apply for their impleadment as legal representatives of Charanjit Singh during execution. There is no bar for executing the exparte decree against them. The decree was passed in the year 2006, but no application for setting aside exparte decree was ever filed till the warrant of possession was issued. The objections appear to have been filed just in order to delay the execution proceedings.
The lower court record further transpires that warrant of possession has been executed and the possession was received from the judgment-debtors. However, the keys of the demised premises have been Civil Revision No.553 of 2011(O&M) [3] handed over to Mehar Singh, Ex.MC and Hari Singh, Lumberdar.
In the circumstances, the instant petition is dismissed with a direction to the Executing Court to further get the possession delivered from Mehar Singh and Hari Singh, in accordance with law.
February 03, 2011 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE