Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhi vs Baljeet Singh And Others on 24 December, 2010
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
C.R. No.8450 of 2010 (O & M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.8450 of 2010 (O & M)
Date of Decision: 24.12.2010
Lakhi .....Petitioner
Versus
Baljeet Singh and others ......Respondents
Coram:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.
Present: Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL)
CM No.32803-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for.
Main Case.
Judgment debtor No.1-Lakhi has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge two orders both dated 26.11.2010 (Annexures P-5 and P-6) passed by the executing Court i.e. learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat thereby dismissing objection petition Annexure P-3 filed by petitioner- Judgment Debtor No.1 and appointing Local Commissioner to get removed the encroachment depicted in site plan by letters 'EDBC' from the street.
Vide judgment and decree dated 25.09.2009 Annexure P-1, suit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 (decree-holders) was decreed by the trial Court for permanent injunction as well as mandatory injunction inter alia directing removal of the aforesaid encroachment made in the street. First appeal preferred against said judgment and decree of the trial Court by defendant No.1 (petitioner herein) was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat vide judgment and decree C.R. No.8450 of 2010 (O & M) -2- dated 24.12.2009 Annexure P-2. Thereafter decree-holders filed execution petition for execution of the decree. Petitioner herein filed objection petition Annexure P-3 in the executing Court alleging that the decree is unexecutable as exact dimensions of houses of Judgment Debtor No.1 and decree-holders and their neighbours have not been specified nor extent of encroachment to be removed has been specified and in the absence of exact area and dimensions, the decree cannot be executed.
Decree-holders by filing reply Annexure P-4 controverted the objection petition filed by the petitioner.
Learned Executing Court vide impugned order Annexure P- 5 dismissed the objection petition and vide order Annexure P-6 appointed Local Commissioner to get the encroachment removed. Feeling aggrieved, Judgment Debtor No.1 has filed the instant revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the lower appellate Court in judgment Annexure P-2 observed that encroachment by defendant No.1 was of on foot width and, therefore, only such encroachment should be got removed. The contention although apparently attractive is in fact devoid of merit. Trial Court passed judgment and decree Annexure P-1 inter alia directing removal of encroachment as depicted in site plan Ex. P-5 (Annexure P-8) by letters 'EDBC'. Lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree Annexure P-2 dismissed the appeal preferred by defendant No.1. Consequently, the judgment and decree of the trial Court Annexure P-1 have been affirmed by the lower appellate Court vide judgment and C.R. No.8450 of 2010 (O & M) -3- decree Annexure P-2. In fact lower appellate Court observed in concluding paragraph of judgment Annexure P-2 that there was no illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. It thus becomes manifest on perusal of judgment and decree Annexure P-1 of the trial court as well as judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court that encroachment depicted in site plan Ex.P-5 by letters 'EDBC' is to be removed. The executing Court vide impugned order has directed the same. In fact the contention now sought to be raised by counsel for the petitioner was not even raised in the objection petition Annexure P-3. Even otherwise, the said contention cannot be accepted for the reasons mentioned hereinbefore.
As a necessary upshot of my aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. Impugned order of the executing Court does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error. On the other hand, judgments and decrees of the trial Court annexure P-1 and lower appellate Court Annexure P-2 are very clear and unambiguous and the encroachment made in the street has been clearly depicted in site plan Ex.P-5. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.
24.12.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE