Delhi District Court
Sh. Rajender Singh vs Ms. Harjeet Kaur on 9 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF
THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: SHAHDARA DISTRICT:
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
Presided by : Sh. Kuldeep Narayan, DHJS
RCA no. 51/2014
Unique I.D No. 02402C0385762014
Sh. Rajender Singh
S/ o Late Sardar Pratap Singh
R/o H. No. 78, Street No. 3,
Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar,
Amritsar, Punjab.
Also at
B-46, East Krishna Nagar,
Delhi-110051.
............... Appellant
Versus
1. Ms. Harjeet Kaur
R/o 374, Maidan Garhi,
Indira Gandhi Open University,
New Delhi.
Present address:-
H.No. 855, Nyaykhan-I,
Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, UP.
2. Ms. Gurpreet Kaur
W/o Sardar Sarpal Singh
R/o B-46, East Krishna Nagar,
Delhi-110051.
RCA no.51/2014 Rajender Singh v. Harjeet Kaur and ors. Page no. 1 of 6
3. Sh. Sukhvinder Singh
S/o Sardar Sarpal Singh
R/o B-46, East Krishna Nagar,
Delhi-110051.
........ Respondents
Date of Institution : 01/12/2014
Order reserved on : 09/02/2015
Order passed on : 09/02/2015
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by Sh. Rajender Singh (appellant) for setting aside the order dated 13/11/2014 passed in execution petition bearing Ex. no. 21/2013 titled as 'Harjeet Kaur v. Gurpreet Kaur and ors.' passed by Ld. Additional Senior Civil Judge (Shahdara), Karkardooma, Delhi (for short 'the impugned order').
2. The respondents were served with notice of the appeal, however, no reply to appeal was filed by them. The record of the execution petition no. 21/2013 was summoned.
3. I have heard the arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record as well as record of the Ld. Executing court.
4. In brief, the factual matrix is that Ms. Harjeet Kaur (plaintiff), the respondent no. 1 herein had filed a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profit in respect of property bearing no. B-46, East Krishna Nagar, RCA no.51/2014 Rajender Singh v. Harjeet Kaur and ors. Page no. 2 of 6 Delhi-110051 ad-measuring 150 sq. yds. (for short 'the suit property') against Ms.Gurpreet Kaur (D-1), Sonu @ Sukhvinder Singh (D-2) & Amanpreet Kaur (D-3). Vide order dated 05/02/2013, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Ld. Trial Court.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants preferred RCA no. 23/2013 before the Ld. Appellate Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 09/10/2013. The defendants thereafter preferred RSA no. 238/2013 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which was also dismissed with cost of Rs.30,000/- vide order dated 24/01/2014.
6. The plaintiff /DH filed an execution petition no. 21/2013 on 21/03/2013, wherein the defendants / JDs filed objections dated 28/02/2014 under Section 47 CPC which were dismissed vide order dated 25/07/2014 by the Ld. Executing court. Afterwards, another application under Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for setting aside the order dated 25/07/2014 was moved on behalf of the JDs on 09/09/2014. Another application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC moved on behalf of Sardar Rajender Singh, the appellant herein, was also filed on 15/10/2014. By way of impugned order, the objection petition filed by the JDs was dismissed in default and the objection petition under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC filed by Sardar Rajender Singh (the appellant) was dismissed.
7. Feeling aggrieved, Sardar Rajender Singh (the appellant) has RCA no.51/2014 Rajender Singh v. Harjeet Kaur and ors. Page no. 3 of 6 preferred the present appeal. The grounds of appeal are that the Ld. Trial court did not apply its judicial mind and ignored the settled provisions of law under Order 21 Rule 97/98 CPC r/w Rule 103 CPC and dismissed the objections of the appellant without giving a chance to prove the same by adducing evidence. It is also stated that the impugned order is contrary to law as well as facts of the case and is accordingly liable to be set aside.
8. Having heard the submissions and perused the entire record, I do not find any merits in the contentions of the counsel for appellant.
9. During the course of arguments, it is argued that the appellant is the co-owner/ co-occupant/ co-sharer having independent legal right in the suit property, which is an ancestral property of his grand-father, alloted by the Govt. of India under rehabilitation scheme of refugees migrated from Pakistan to India, but this fact was not duly considered by the Ld. Executing court and he was not given an opportunity to prove his contentions by leading evidence in support of his contentions.
10. The perusal of the impugned order reveals that each and every contention of the appellant was duly considered by the Ld. Executing court which could not find favour with the stand taken by the appellant. It was observed by the Ld. Executing court that the appellant though claimed to be co-occupant in the suit property, yet he was completely unaware about the proceedings of the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. The Ld. Executing court did not find favour and rightfully so, RCA no.51/2014 Rajender Singh v. Harjeet Kaur and ors. Page no. 4 of 6 with the contentions about one allotment slip, being in possession of the appellant, pertaining to the suit property, which was allegedly burnt during the Sikh Riots in the year 1984 and regarding which a police complaint was also lodged in PS Krishna Nagar. Appellant did not disclose any DD number or any date regarding lodging of the said police compliant nor could furnish any clarification as to why the aforesaid allotment slip, if any, could not be again applied for during all these years together.
11. During arguments, counsel for the appellant referred to one photocopy of purported copy of the complaint made to PS Krishna Nagar vide DD number 9A dated 15/11/1984 in support of his contentions. However, perusal of the same goes to indicate that the same was with respect to some documents in the name of his wife-Ms. Rajrani, though it is not clear what were the nature of those documents. The aforementioned copy of the complaint itself belie the stand taken by the appellant about the allotment slip to be in his name. The only ground to prefer the present appeal taken by the appellant is that the Ld. Executing court did not allow him to prove his contentions by leading evidence. However, in the entire circumstances, the Ld. Executing court came to the right decision not to delay the execution proceedings by falling into the trap of the appellant as the objections taken were without any basis and were vexatious in nature. No infirmity or illegality can be found with the findings of the Ld. Executing court while dismissing the objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. It appears that the present appeal has been preferred only to ensure RCA no.51/2014 Rajender Singh v. Harjeet Kaur and ors. Page no. 5 of 6 that the fruits of the decree are denied or at the most, delayed to the DH by raising frivolous grounds on one pretext or the other.
12. Therefore, finding the present appeal absolutely without any merits, I deem it fit to dismiss the appeal. Hence, appeal stands dismissed.
13. Decree sheet be prepared.
14. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
15. File of execution petition be sent back to the court concerned with copy of this order.
Annnounced in the (KULDEEP NARAYAN)
open court Addl. District Judge:
on 09/02/2015. Shahdara District:
Court no. 11
Karkardooma, Delhi.
RCA no.51/2014 Rajender Singh v. Harjeet Kaur and ors. Page no. 6 of 6