Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Singh And Another vs Santokh Singh And Others on 23 March, 2012
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
C. R. 5696 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : C. R. 5696 of 2011
Date of Decision : March 23, 2012
Sukhdev Singh and another .... Petitioners
Vs.
Santokh Singh and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. K. S. Boparai, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Bhavyadeep Walia, Advocate
for the respondents.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
Decree-holders Sukhdev Singh and his son Sukhwinder Singh have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 19.04.2011 (Annexure P-9) passed by learned Executing Court i.e. learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura, thereby dismissing petitioners' application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short - CPC) for grant of police help to implement judgment and decree dated 28.02.2002 (Annexure P-1), passed by the trial C. R. 5696 of 2011 2 court and affirmed up to Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Petitioners filed suit against respondents no.1 and 2 herein as defendants and Jaswinder Singh - another son of Sukhdev Singh - petitioner no.1 as proforma defendant no.3. On the other hand, Santokh Singh - respondent no.1 herein filed separate suit against petitioners and said Jaswinder Singh. Both the said suits were decided by trial court by common judgment dated 28.02.2002. Suit filed by petitioners herein was decreed for permanent injunction restraining respondents no.1 and 2 herein (Santokh Singh and his wife Gurmeet Kaur) from interfering in possession of the petitioners herein over the suit land as well as the disputed house except in due course of law, whereas suit filed by respondent no.1 herein was dismissed.
Petitioners/decree-holders filed execution petition against respondents no.1 and 2 for execution of the aforesaid judgment and decree alleging that respondents no.1 and 2 - judgment-debtors were violating the decree. The judgment-debtors pleaded that they are in possession of the suit land. During pendency of the execution petition, decree-holders filed application under Section 151 CPC for implementing the decree by grant of police help. The said application has been dismissed by the Executing Court vide impugned order Annexure P-9, which is under challenge in this revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the C. R. 5696 of 2011 3 case file.
Counsel for the petitioners contended that since judgment- debtors are violating the decree in question, it is required to be implemented by grant of police help. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of this Court in the case of Sher Singh vs. Jangir Kaur and others reported as 1990 PLJ 254, wherein it was held that police help can be granted to implement interim injunction order. Counsel for the petitioners also relied on various other judgments namely Harbans Singh vs. Daulat Ram reported as 1993 (2) RRR 628, Banwari Lal vs. Municipal Committee, Kanina reported as 2007 (5) RCR (Civil) 662, Kundan Lal vs. Smt. Krishna Devi and another reported as 2011 (3) Law Herald (P&H) 2071, Jaswinder Singh and others vs. Jit Kaur and others reported as 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 170 and Gopinathan Pillai vs. Rajappan reported as 2011 (3) Civil Court Cases 534 to contend that in execution of decree for permanent injunction, even warrant of possession can be issued if judgment-debtors in violation of the decree have taken possession of the suit property.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents, relying on judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Golikata Reddy vs. Goli Raja Gopala Reddy and others reported as AIR 2001 Andhra Pradesh 110, contended that police help cannot be granted to execute a C. R. 5696 of 2011 4 decree. Reference was also made to order Annexure R-1 to contend that earlier similar application moved by the petitioners was dismissed vide said order dated 04.11.2003. Counsel for the respondents also stated that respondents are not in possession of the suit land and they are not interfering in possession of the petitioners over the suit land.
I have carefully considered the rival contentions.
Since respondents are allegedly not interfering in possession of the petitioners over the suit land and in fact, respondents cannot do so in view of decree Annexure P-1, which has been upheld up to Hon'ble Apex Court, it is beyond comprehension as to why the respondents are contesting the petitioners' claim for police help for implementation of decree Annexure P-1. Respondents have no right, title or interest in the suit land and have no right to interfere in the possession of the petitioners over the suit land. Respondents have been injuncted from doing so. Consequently, respondents can possibly have no objection to grant of police help to the petitioners for implementation of decree Annexure P-1.
It is worth mentioning that even in order to implement order of temporary injunction, police help can be granted, as held by this Court in the case of Sher Singh (supra). Consequently, there is no reason why police help cannot be granted for implementing final decree of permanent injunction. If no such help is granted, the decree may remain a waste piece of paper.
C. R. 5696 of 2011 5
Judgment in the case of Golikata Reddy (supra) is not attracted to the facts of the instant case. In that case, certain rights of judgment-debtors were to be adjudicated. In the instant case, however, the judgment-debtors do not and cannot claim any right in the suit land.
As regards order Annexure R-1, the said order was passed to reject application of decree-holders under Section 151 CPC, which was moved without filing execution petition. The Court observed in order Annexure R-1 that decree-holders can file execution petition under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC to execute the decree. Impugned order Annexure P-9 has been passed in application under Section 151 CPC, which was moved after filing execution petition and as an interim application in the execution petition.
Before concluding, it has to be noticed that ultimately, the Executing Court, vide order dated 11.08.2011 (Annexure P-11) has even held judgment-debtor - respondent no.1 to be guilty of disobeying the injunction decree Annexure P-1 and he has been directed to be detained in civil prison for two months. Appeal preferred by respondent no.1 against the said order is stated to be pending. It is expressly made clear that nothing observed in this order shall have any bearing on merits of the said appeal.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find that learned Executing Court, while passing impugned order Annexure P-9, failed to exercise the jurisdiction, which vested in it. The impugned order is illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is C. R. 5696 of 2011 6 allowed. Impugned order Annexure P-9 passed by the Executing Court is set aside. Application moved by the petitioners under Section 151 CPC is allowed. Executing Court is directed to provide police help in accordance with law to the petitioners for implementing decree (Annexure P-1).
Parties are directed to appear before the Executing Court on 03.04.2012.
C. M. No. 25325-C-II of 2011 for interim relief is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.
March 23, 2012 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE