Himachal Pradesh High Court
Hem Raj vs Kulwant Singh on 5 December, 2018
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 29 of 2018 Decided on: December 5, 2018 .
_____________________________________________________________ Hem Raj .. Petitioner Versus Kulwant Singh ..........Respondent _____________________________________________________________ Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 _____________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate. _____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge:(oral) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the passing of order dated 3.1.2018 by the learned Civil Judge, Court No. IV, Hamirpur, H.P. in Exe. No. 2/2015 titled Kulwant Singh vs. Hem Raj, whereby warrant of possession has been issued by the learned executing Court to enforce the decree dated 12.4.2012 passed in Civil Suit No. 27 of 2004, petitioner-
judgment debtor (hereinafter, 'petitioner') has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside order dated 3.1.2018. While referring to order dated 3.1.2018, Mr. Ajay Chandel, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions of his client, stated that the learned Civil Judge, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2018 22:55:42 :::HCHP 2has wrongly recorded in the impugned order that the judgment debtor has been delaying execution of the compromise on one .
pretext or the other, rather, report of the revenue officer, who visited the spot to execute the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, clearly suggests that the petitioner remained present on each and every date, whereas, respondent/Decree Holder (hereinafter, 'respondent') was not present as such, compromise entered inter se parties could not be given effect.r
2. Averments contained in the petition as well as documents annexed thereto i.e. Annexure P-3, clearly suggest that after filing of execution petition by the respondent, parties entered into compromise on 24.5.2015, whereby petitioner agreed to pay `80,000/- to the respondent as litigation expenses and to give 1 ½ Marla of land out of Khasra No. 337.
As per agreement, petitioner agreed that he would get the registration of exchanged land done within a period of one month from the date of entering into compromise i.e. 24.5.2015, Since petitioner, despite, repeated opportunities failed to get the land transferred in the name of respondent, impugned order dated 3.1.2018, came to be passed against him.
::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2018 22:55:42 :::HCHP 33. Today, during the proceedings of the case, Mr. Ajay Chandel, learned counsel representing the petitioner stated .
that his client is ready and willing to get the registration done in terms of compromise arrived at inter se parties as per report of Patwari (Annexure P-6) any time and he has no objection in case compromise arrived at inter se parties, which has been otherwise made part of execution proceedings, is given effect to.
4. Consequently, in view of above, present petition is disposed of. Order dated 3.1.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No. IV, Hamirpur, H.P. in Exe. No. 2/2015 titled Kulwant Singh vs. Hem Raj is quashed and set aside. Parties are directed to remain present on the spot on 14.12.2018, on which date, Patwari, who had earlier visited the spot, as has been alleged by petitioner, shall remain present, so that fresh Tatima is prepared on the spot in terms of compromise arrived inter se parties. After preparation of Tatima by the aforesaid revenue officer, petitioner shall ensure that registry qua exchange of land is done within a period of two weeks.
However, it is made clear that in case, petitioner fails to take steps within two weeks, as stipulated herein above, respondent would not be bound by the compromise entered into inter se ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2018 22:55:42 :::HCHP 4 parties during the execution proceedings. However, respondent is also directed to render full cooperation to the petitioner for .
execution of the registration within the stipulated time and for carving out Tatima on the spot by the revenue officer.
Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
Interim direction, if any, is vacated.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge December 5, 2018 (vikrant) ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2018 22:55:42 :::HCHP