Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rama Nand vs Commissioner on 2 April, 2012
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
C. R. No. 3981 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : C. R. No. 3981 of 2011
Date of Decision : April 02, 2012
Rama Nand .... Petitioner
Vs.
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation
Faridabad, Faridabad and another .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. Sanjeev Roy, Advocate
for Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
Rama Nand - decree holder has filed this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short - CPC) assailing order dated 06.05.2011 passed by the Executing Court i.e. learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, thereby dismissing execution petition filed by petitioner - decree holder.
Suit filed by petitioner - decree holder against Faridabad Complex Administration (now, Municipal Corporation, Faridabad - MCF), was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 02.09.1989, restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiff - decree holder C. R. No. 3981 of 2011 2 over plot/house forming part of khasra no.77, except in due course of law.
In the execution petition, the petitioner alleged that in violation of said judgment and decree, respondents - judgment debtors (Commissioner and Joint Commissioner of MCF) have demolished the house of the petitioner on 17.11.2000. The petitioner sought restoration of the construction along with prosecution of the respondents.
Respondents - judgment debtors controverted the allegations of the petitioner - decree holder, except that the suit was decreed. Respondents, however, pleaded that they demolished the unauthorized construction of petitioner in due course of law. It was pleaded that the suit land belongs to MCF. Notice dated 21.08.2002 was issued to the petitioner. It was served on him on 26.08.2002. The petitioner did not respond to the notice. Respondents then passed speaking order for demolition of unauthorized construction of the petitioner. Accordingly, the said construction was demolished in September 2002 in due course of law.
Learned Executing Court, vide impugned order dated 06.05.2011, dismissed the execution petition, upholding the stand of the respondents. Feeling aggrieved, decree holder has filed this revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that respondents, in C. R. No. 3981 of 2011 3 violation of judgment and decree of the Court, have demolished the petitioner's construction existing in the suit land. The contention cannot be accepted. Decree was passed in favour of the petitioner restraining the respondents from interfering in possession of the petitioner, except in due course of law. In other words, respondents could demolish the petitioner's construction in due course of law. It is proved on record that respondents adopted due course of law and the petitioner filed execution petition by making false averments. Respondents have proved that they had issued notice dated 21.08.2002 and the same was received by the respondent on 26.08.2002. The petitioner - decree holder in the witness box admitted in cross-examination that the aforesaid notice (Ex.D-2) had been served on him. He claimed to have submitted reply to the said notice, but no copy of any such reply was placed on record. On the other hand, there is categorical stand of the respondents that the petitioner did not respond to the aforesaid notice. The said version of respondents is fortified because the petitioner did not prove copy of any reply sent by him to the aforesaid notice.
In addition to the aforesaid, the petitioner, in the execution petition, specifically pleaded that his construction was demolished on 17.11.2000. However, in the witness box, petitioner admitted the respondents' version that the construction was demolished in the year 2002. It thus becomes manifest from own admission of the petitioner that he took false plea in the execution petition that the construction had been C. R. No. 3981 of 2011 4 demolished in November 2000. In fact, it was demolished in September 2002, as averred by the respondents.
The aforesaid conclusion is further fortified by the fact that the instant execution petition was filed by the petitioner on 11.11.2006. If petitioner's construction had been demolished on 17.11.2000, without adopting due course of law, the petitioner would not have remained silent for six years before filing the execution petition. On the contrary, petitioner's construction was demolished in September 2002 after adopting due course of law and it is not explained why the petitioner remained silent for another four years even thereafter till filing the execution petition on 11.11.2006. If petitioner's construction had been demolished without due course of law even in September 2002, the petitioner would not have remained silent for another four years. It may be added that according to jamabandi placed on record of Executing Court, MCF is owner of the suit land and petitioner has no right, title or interest therein.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no infirmity, much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the Executing Court so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. The revision petition is meritless and is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
April 02, 2012 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE