Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harjinder Singh & Ors vs Punjab Wakf Board & Anr on 9 December, 2014
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
CR No.8369 of 2014 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.8369 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of decision:09.12.2014
Harjinder Singh & others
....Petitioners
Versus
Punjab Wakf Board & another
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr.S.S.Salar, Advocate, for the petitioners.
****
G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral)
Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 19.11.2014 (Annexure P5), passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Kapurthala, whereby the objections of the present petitioners, who is one of the legal heirs of the judgment debtors, has been dismissed by holding that the issue of jurisdiction is not to be gone into when the same had already been decided by the Court in the suit having original jurisdiction and the issue was decided against the defendants.
A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that the suit for possession was filed by the respondent-Board on 22.12.1995 against Sucha Singh and two of his sons and the Gram Panchayat was also impleaded as defendant No.4. The plea taken by the Board was that the property was a Muslim public Wakf property and defendants No.1 to 3 had taken forcible and illegal possession of the suit land. The plea of adverse and hostile possession was taken by the father of the present petitioners, Sucha Singh along with two brothers of the petitioners. Issue No.6 regarding jurisdiction was also framed as to whether the SAILESH RANJAN Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Accordingly, since the 2014.12.16 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.8369 of 2014 (O&M) -2- defendants admited that the plaintiff was the owner, it was held that the Court had jurisdiction to decide the issue and the suit was, accordingly, decided on 06.09.2000. Admittedly, the appeal filed against the said order has also been dismissed on 16.12.2003.
Resultantly, the execution petition was filed by the Board on 07.09.2006, seeking possession of the land in which objections have been raised on the ground that the Executing Court had no jurisdiction to order possession.
Admittedly, the petitioner is one of the sons of Sucha Singh and is bound by the decree, as such. His brothers were party to the litigation and now, on the death of Sucha Singh, he has been roped in to raise the dispute regarding lack of jurisdiction. He is not an independent third person who could raise an objection which the Court is bound to decide. It is settled principle that the Executing Court is not to go behind the decree and has only to execute the decree passed by the Court.
The judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal & another 2005 (7) SCC 791 relied upon by counsel for the petitioners, would not be applicable to the present case since the dispute in question pertained to territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Delhi whereby it had been held that the Court at Delhi had no jurisdiction to entertain the issue. The said order was, accordingly, upheld by the Apex Court. The observations came in that contest.
Similarly, the judgment in Naib Singh Vs. Mihan Singh 1975 PLR 741 is also not applicable since in that case also, the Arbitrator did not follow the procedure by issuing the necessary notices to the judgment debtors and the property was sold without following the proper procedure. In such circumstances, the judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioners are not SAILESH RANJAN applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 2014.12.16 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.8369 of 2014 (O&M) -3-
The order passed by the Trial Court is fully justified since the decree holder is only seeking its rights under the decree which remains unexecuted in spite of more than decade having gone by.
Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the present revision petition is totally misconceived and unwarranted and the same is, hereby, dismissed.
09.12.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA)
sailesh JUDGE
SAILESH RANJAN
2014.12.16 17:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document