Punjab-Haryana High Court
Khem Chand And Others vs Parveen Bala on 3 October, 2012
Author: L.N. Mittal
Bench: L.N. Mittal
E.S.A. No. 33 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
E.S.A. No. 33 of 2011
Date of decision : October 03, 2012
Khem Chand and others
....Appellants
versus
Parveen Bala
....Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Mr. KS Dhillon, Advocate, for the appellants
Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for the respondent
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
Objectors Khem Chand and his sisters Pemmi Devi and Veena Devi have filed this execiton second appeal having failed in both the courts below.
This case illustrates how execution of orders passed by the courts is delayed or frustrated by vested interest.
In the instant case, ejectment petition filed by respondent Parveen Bala under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 on E.S.A. No. 33 of 2011 -2- the ground of personal necessity was allowed by the appellate authority against Madan Lal tenant. Civil Revision No. 7308 of 2009 filed by Madan Lal was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 28.5.2010, Annexure R/7. Thereupon, respondent-landlady filed execution petition for execution of the ejectment order.
In the execution petition, appellants herein, who are brother and sisters of judgment debtor Madan Lal, filed objections alleging that they all were tenants along with Madan Lal judgment debtor in the demised property and therefore, the ejectment order cannot be executed against the appellants/objectors as they were not impleaded in the ejectment petition. The said objections have been dismissed by both the courts below. Feeling aggrieved, the instant second appeal has been preferred by the objectors.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that rent receipts Annexures A/1 to A/3 were issued by the previous landlord Naranjan Singh (from whom the respondent purchased the demised property) in favour of Madan Lal and brothers and therefore, all the brothers were co-tenants in possession of the demised property and appellant no. 1 also being brother of Madan Lal was also co-tenant and therefore, the ejectment order cannot be executed against the appellants being not party to E.S.A. No. 33 of 2011 -3- the ejectment order. It was also argued that the objections preferred by the appellants have been dismissed summarily by the courts below without granting opportunity of leading evidence to substantiate the objections.
The contentions aforesaid appear to be very forceful and meritorious on first blush but the same are in fact completely frivolous and meritless. At the outset, it has to be noticed that appellants no.2 and 3 who are sisters of appellant no. 1-Khem Chand do not claim to be co-tenants on the basis of rent receipts Annexures A/1 to A/3 which were issued in favour of Madan Lal and brothers only and which are the basis of whole claim of the objectors/appellants. Consequently, appellants no. 2 and 3 who are sisters of Madan Lal have to be knocked out on this short ground.
As regards appellant no. 1, it is his own case in the objections that he was in service of Bank of India (although now retired) and the demised property was in possession of appellants no. 2 and 3 only. Thus, appellant no. 1 in paragraph 4 of the objection petition specifically pleaded that he was not even in possession of the demised property. Consequently, objections on his behalf have also been rightly dismissed.
In the aforesaid circumstances, there was no necessity of framing issues or granting opportunity for leading evidence in support of objections because in view of own pleadings and documents of the appellants, their objections merited dismissal and in fact should have been E.S.A. No. 33 of 2011 -4- dismissed with costs because the objections are per se frivolous and meritless.
Added to the aforesaid, it has also been rightly pointed out by counsel for the respondent that in fact appellant no.1 Khem Chand had been pursuing Civil Revision no. 7308 of 2009 filed by Madan Lal against the ejectment order passed by the appellate authority. In this respect, reference has been made to information Annexure R/2 furnished by this Court with forwarding letter Annexure R/1 under the Right to Information Act. According to this information, aforesaid Civil Revision No. 7308 of 2009 titled Madan Lal versus Parveen Bala was fixed for 25.5.2010 at Sr. Nos. 101 and 202. Petitioner Madan Lal in the said revision was represented by Mr. Sudhir Pruthi, Advocate who got made gate passes for Khem Chand appellant no. 1 along with Dinesh Kumar on 25.5.2010 for entry into this Court to attend the aforesaid revision petition. It would depict that appellant no. 1 himself had been pursuing the aforesaid revision petition and having failed therein, filed the objections in the execution proceedings but never applied to the Rent Controller or the appellate authority or this Court till decision of CR No. 7308 of 2009 for becoming a party to the ejectment case.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the instant second appeal is not only meritless but is completely frivolous. The same deserves to be E.S.A. No. 33 of 2011 -5- dismissed with heavy costs so as to curb such frivolous litigation. By filing frivolous and meritless objections, the appellants have delayed the execution of ejectment order by at least two years although the ejectment order had attained finality with dismissal of CR No. 7308 of 2009.
Accordingly, the instant second appeal is dismissed with costs of ` 10,000/- to be paid by the appellants to the respondent-decree holder.
( L.N. Mittal )
October 03, 2012 Judge
'dalbir'