Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tuhi Ram And Others vs Manoj Kumar And Others on 2 May, 2012
Author: K.C.Puri
Bench: K.C. Puri
Civil Revision No.2194 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.2194 of 2012(O&M)
Date of decision 2.05.2012.
Tuhi Ram and others
...... Petitioners.
versus
Manoj Kumar and others
...... Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. K.C.PURI. J.
C.M.No.11197 CII of 2012 Documents Annexures P-4 to P-7 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. C.M. Stands allowed.
MAIN CASE Challenge in this revision is the order dated 3.01.2012 passed by Mrs.Ashu Sanjeev Tinjan, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal vide which the objection petition filed on behalf of judgment debtor No.2 to 5 was dismissed.
2. It has been averred by the objectors that the judgment and decree under execution are outcome of fraud played upon plaintiff/decree- Civil Revision No.2194 of 2012 2 holder by forging the material documents. The objectors have bonafidely purchased the suit land for a valuable consideration from Mool Chand adopted son of Smt.Ram Piyari judgment debtor No.1. vide registered sale deed dated 16.8.1988. Decree was obtained on the ground that Mool Chand adopted son of Ram Piyari had died and produced in evidence a death certificate Ex.PA whereas Mool Chand is still alive and is a resident of Gurgaon. The judgment and decree dated 19.8.1996 has been wrongly passed on the basis of false document Ex.PA. The said document Ex.PA is a forged, fabricated and procured by son of plaintiff in connivance and collusion with nephews of her mother Yogesh Bhardwaj, who was an HCS Officer having influence in the Government offices. A case FIR No.123 dated 4.3.2010 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was registered and investigation is still pending. It has been further alleged that the decree-holders have played serious fraud upon them as well as on the trial Court.
3. The said objections were resisted by the decree-holders- respondents. They took preliminary objections that the respondents/JDs have raised the same objections which were raised by them in the pleadings of the suit, therefore, judgment debtors cannot be permitted to raise such objections in this execution petition also and the same require straightway rejection.
4. On merits, respondents-decree-holders denied that the judgment and decree are an outcome of fraud played by the plaintiff-decree holder by forging the material documents which were foundation of the decree. The Civil Revision No.2194 of 2012 3 objections have already been decided even upto this Court. Denying other averments, the decree-holders-respondents prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. The learned trial Court after hearing both the sides dismissed the objection petition.
6. Feeling dissatisfied with the order of dismissal of the objection petition, the present revision petition has been filed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the file.
8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Mool Chand adopted son of Ram Piyari is still alive and is resident of Gurgaon and his death certificate Ex.PA is a forged and fabricated document. Counsel for the petitioner is fair enough to concede that the same objection was taken in the suit and that was upheld by the Courts. Therefore, the matter which has already been adjudicated between the parties in a suit cannot be allowed to be re-agitated in the execution petition.
9. In the revision Annexures P-4 to P-7 do not advance the case of the petitioner/judgment-debtors-objectors rather these are the documents which go against them as in these judgments and orders, the matter now raised, has already been adjudicated in those judgments and orders.
8. So, I see no merit in the revision petition and the same stands dismissed.
Civil Revision No.2194 of 2012 4
9. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.
( K.C. PURI ) JUDGE May 02 , 2012 sv