Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 767 (PNJ)

Gurcharna Kaur v. Baljinder Singh

2000-07-20

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. (Oral) - This is a civil revision petition and has been directed against the order dated 6.3.1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana who dismissed the objections of the judgment debtor. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner :- 2. The decree holder-respondents filed a civil suit for possession with respect to 3/16th share of land measuring 92 kanals 5-1/2 marlas. The suit was contested at all levels including at the level of High Court. Finally, the decree passed by the trial Court was affirmed upto the High Court in RSA 114 of 1974 decided on 7.2.1993. The decree holder-plaintiffs filed execution application for the first time on 14.6.1993. Unfortunately some khasra numbers regarding which decree was passed in favour of the decree holders could not be included in the execution application. When this omission came to the notice of the decree holder, he made an application for the amendment of the application which was filed on 24.8.1996 and this application was allowed on 22.5.1997. After the filing of the amended execution application the judgment debtors filed objections that the khasra numbers which have been sought to be added in the amended execution application are barred by limitation as when the amended application was filed it had become already time barred. The Executing Court did not accept the contention of the petitioners and for the reasons given in the order the objections were dismissed and in this manner the present revision petition has been filed in this Honble Court. 3. I have heard Mr. Satinder Khanna, counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Gurcharan Dass, counsel for the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record. Before I deal with the rival contentions of the parties it will be appropriate for me to notice the following reasons given by the Executing Court : "I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on controversy between the parties and have gone through the material placed on record thoroughly and minutely. The learned counsel for the objector has relied upon Apex Court Journal 1996(2) with the heading Tarlok Singh v. Vijay Kumar Sabbarwal. It was a suit for perpetual injunction that amendment of the plaint allowed for converting suit into a suit for specific performance of this agreement limitation when begins to run that would be when amendment order. The learned counsel for the objector has relied upon Apex Court Journal 1996(2) with the heading Tarlok Singh v. Vijay Kumar Sabbarwal. It was a suit for perpetual injunction that amendment of the plaint allowed for converting suit into a suit for specific performance of this agreement limitation when begins to run that would be when amendment order. The facts of the case are totally different and are not applicable to the facts of the present case and so as such with due respect to the Honble Judges of the Supreme Court I do not agree with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the objector. The objector also has placed reliance on another judgment Radhey Shyam Jaiswal (dead) and other v. Smt. Ram Dulari Devi and others, reported in Apex Court Journal 317 Supreme Court. C.P.C. Section 48 Execution - Limitation - 12 years - Decree passed on 29.10.1949 execution application filed on 14.11.1967, the facts of the case are totally different from the facts of the execution in hand so I do not agree with the judgment as relied upon by the counsel for the objector. The learned counsel for the decree holder has drawn by intention (attention ?) to the authority as contained in 1993(2) S.L.J. 1359 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and another authority of 1969 Supreme Court 1287." 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Muni Lal v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1996(1) SC 462; Tarlok Singh v. Vijay Kumar Sabharwal, JT 1996(4) (SC) 245 and Gram Panchayat etc. v. Kesho Narain, AIR 1964 Punjab 462, and submits that with regard to the new khasra numbers incorporated in the amended execution application the decree of the decree holders has already become time barred. The submission of the learned counsel is totally without any merit. The objector filed objections to the execution of the decree in the suit. The execution application is nothing but the execution of the decree with respect to entire khasra numbers. The application filed for amendment of the execution application was allowed by the Executing Court on 23.5.1997. This order was never challenged. In these circumstances the petitioners are estopped from objecting to the addition of khasra numbers sought to be added in the execution application as being time barred. 5. The application filed for amendment of the execution application was allowed by the Executing Court on 23.5.1997. This order was never challenged. In these circumstances the petitioners are estopped from objecting to the addition of khasra numbers sought to be added in the execution application as being time barred. 5. In this view of the matter I do not want to differ with the reason given by the Court below. Accordingly the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.