Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 3089 (PNJ)

Yugraj Singh v. Rajwinder Singh

2023-10-31

NAMIT KUMAR

body2023
JUDGMENT Mr. Namit Kumar, J. (Oral) The instant Revision Petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 18.09.2023 (Annexure P-9) passed by the court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana in Execution Petition No.EXE-4987-2023 titled as 'Rajwinder Singh and others v. Surinder Pal Kaur', whereby third party objections dated 22.05.2023 (Annexure P-7) preferred by the petitioner have been dismissed. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present revision petition, as have been stated in the petition, are that Rajwinder Singh and Jaswinder Singh son of late Sh. Gurjaswant Singh, who is an NRI, has empowered Inderbir Singh to file a petition dated 24.08.2017 under Section 20 of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995, seeking eviction of Surinder Pal Kaur from the first and second floor of the house bearing property no.81 situated at South Model Gram, Ludhiana consisting of three bedroom, drawing room, kitchen, bathroom and washroom. 3. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed a Civil Suit No.1864/2018 seeking declaration to the effect that he is exclusive owner of the house in question situated at South Model Gram, Ludhiana against Rajwinder Singh and Jaswinder Singh. The case set by the plaintiff/petitioner in the said suit was that earlier Mrs. Amardeep Kaur wife of Late Sh. Gurjaswant Singh was owner in possession of the said property and she had bequeathed her entire estate in favour of the present petitioner by executing a Will dated 15.08.2013. 4. It is also averred in the petition that Surinder Pal Kaur (tenant), when came to know about the aforesaid civil suit, she moved a petition under section 35 of CPC, which was termed as inter-pleader suit. The petitioner also filed an application in the rent petition for deciding the ownership of the property in dispute and also sought stay of the proceedings in the eviction petition filed under section 10 of CPC. However, the said application was dismissed by learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana vide order dated 14.01.2021 and the same was never questioned by the present petitioner any further. The rent petition was accepted and Surinder Pal Kaur was ordered to be evicted from the demised premises, vide judgement dated 17.02.2023 passed by learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana. However, the said application was dismissed by learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana vide order dated 14.01.2021 and the same was never questioned by the present petitioner any further. The rent petition was accepted and Surinder Pal Kaur was ordered to be evicted from the demised premises, vide judgement dated 17.02.2023 passed by learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana. Concluding paras of the said judgement are as under:- " In view of the above discussion upon issue No. 1 to 3, the petitioners succeed and petition is hereby allowed with costs. An order of ejectment of the respondent from demised premises i.e. first and second floor of house bearing No.81, consisting of 3 bed rooms, drawing rooms, kitchen, bathroom, latrine, shown as red in the site plan is ordered to be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent. The respondent is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the same to the petitioner within a period of two months from today failing which the petitioner shall be at liberty to obtain the vacant possession of the demised premises through execution of judgment. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to the record room, after due compliance. " 5. The present petitioner had filed an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of CPC seeking temporary injunction, in Civil Suit No.1864/2018 and the said application was disposed of by the court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana vide order dated 20.03.2023 by directing the parties to maintain status quo till final disposal of the civil suit. 6. Thereafter, the respondents filed an execution Petition i.e. EXE-4987-2023 titled as 'Rajwinder Singh and others v. Surinder Pal Kaur' before the Executing Court in which the petitioner filed third party objections dated 22.05.2023 (Annexure P-7) under Order 21, Rule 99 (1) of CPC by stating that in the month of February, 2023, the possession of the disputed property was delivered to the petitioner by the tenant-Surinder Pal Kaur and he is in possession of the demised premises. It was also pleaded that vide order dated 20.03.2023, the court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana had granted interim injunction, whereby the parties have been directed to maintain status quo. The said third party objections dated 22.05.2023, filed by the petitioner were contested by the respondents by filing a detailed reply. It was also pleaded that vide order dated 20.03.2023, the court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana had granted interim injunction, whereby the parties have been directed to maintain status quo. The said third party objections dated 22.05.2023, filed by the petitioner were contested by the respondents by filing a detailed reply. The said objections were dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated 18.09.2023 (Annexure P-9) and impugning the said order, the instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the possession is with the present petitioner w.e.f. February, 2023 and there is a status quo order dated 20.02.2023, passed by the court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divsion.) Ludhiana, therefore, his objections have wrongly been rejected by the Executing Court without following the procedure as laid down under Order 21, Rule 98 of CPC. The relevant portion of the impugned order 18.09.2023 (Annexure P-9), passed by the court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana in Execution Petition No.EXE-4987-2023 titled as 'Rajwinder Singh and others v. Surinder Pal Kaur', whereby third party objections dated 22.05.2023 (Annexure P-7) filed by the petitioner have been rejected is as under:- " I have perused the case file. The DH has filed the present ejectment petition on the basis of eviction order dated 17.02.2023. No order of stay with regard to present execution application has been placed on record. The eviction order dated 17.02.2023 has not been set-aside yet. It is the only contention of the objector that he has filed a civil suit with regard to the suit property and the same is pending before the court wherein a order of status-quo with regard to the actual and factual position of the suit property at the spot was passed on 20.03.2023. The objector placed on record copy of plaint of suit titled as "Yugraj Singh v. Surinder Pal Kaur & Ors.", copy of written statement filed by defendant no.2 & 3 in the said suit, copy of Will dated 15.08.2013. On the other hand, it was submitted that the objections have been filed just to delay the proceedings. The learned counsel for the DH placed on record copy of jamabandi for the year 2010-11, photocopy of affidavit of Yugraj Singh, copy of lost information report made by Yugraj Singh to the police authorities. On the other hand, it was submitted that the objections have been filed just to delay the proceedings. The learned counsel for the DH placed on record copy of jamabandi for the year 2010-11, photocopy of affidavit of Yugraj Singh, copy of lost information report made by Yugraj Singh to the police authorities. As per revenue record, the DH are owners of the suit property. So, from the perusal of the documents placed on record by both the parties, it is found that the original alleged Will dated 15.08.2013 alleged to be executed in the favour of objector Yugraj Singh is not available. Copy of plaint of suit titled as "Yugraj Singh v. Surinder Pal Kaur & Ors." shows that the plaintiff Yugraj Singh has nowhere stated in the said suit that he is in possession of the property. Even, no document was placed to show his possession. Only the bald assertions/statements that the possession of the property has been delivered to the objector are not acceptable. Moreover, the presence of the objector and JD at the time of execution of warrant of possessions shows their connivance. Moreover, the decree holder placed on record copy of order dated 17.02.2023 passed during the pendency of rent petition wherein it was claimed by the JD that on 08.01.2023, she had gone to Shimla along with her daughters and in her absence, one Yugraj Singh has broken the locks and took forcible possession of the said property. Now, in the present objections, the objector/applicant alleged that in the month of February 2023 the possession was delivered to the applicant by the tenant. If the possession was taken by the applicant on 08.01.2023 as per the version of judgment debtor/tenant then how the JD can hand over the possession of the tenanted premises in the month of February-2023. So, it is clear that the JD and the objector have joined hands just to delay the present execution application. Moreover, when the warrants of possession were issued and the same were received back un-executed with the report that JD and Yugraj Singh were present at the property in dispute. If for the sake of arguments it is presumed that if the possession was with the objector/applicant then what the JD was doing at the spot. Moreover, when the warrants of possession were issued and the same were received back un-executed with the report that JD and Yugraj Singh were present at the property in dispute. If for the sake of arguments it is presumed that if the possession was with the objector/applicant then what the JD was doing at the spot. So, there is a clear connivance of JD and objector with each other just to create hindrance and obstruction in the execution of warrant of possession. So, if the JD and third party exchanged their possessions despite the knowledge of the eviction order then there will be no end to the litigation and by doing so, they are making mockery of law. In case titled as " Smt. Ved Kumari (dead through her legal representative Dr. Vijay Aggarwal) v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi through its Commissioner, SLP (C) Nos. 12601-12602 of 2017 decided on 24.08.2023" wherein it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that " in view of the settled legal position, as noted (supra), it was the duty of the Executing Court to issue warrant of possession for effecting physical delivery of the suit land to the decree-holder in terms of suit schedule property and if any resistance is offered by any stranger to the decree, the same be adjudicated upon in accordance with Rule 97 to 101 of Order XXI of the CPC. The Executing Court could not have dismissed the execution petition by treating the decree to be in executable merely on the basis that the decree-holder has lost possession to a third party/encroacher. If this is allowed to happen, every judgment-debtor who is in possession of the movable property till the decree is passed, shall hand over possession to a third party to defeat the decree-holder's right and entitlement to enjoy the fruits of litigation and this may continue indefinitely and no decree for immovable property can be executed". So, in view of the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that the objections have been filed just to delay the matter without any merit. Hence, the objections are hereby dismissed. Now to come up on 09.10.2023 for statement of bailiff as well as DH with regard to police help. " 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 9. Hence, the objections are hereby dismissed. Now to come up on 09.10.2023 for statement of bailiff as well as DH with regard to police help. " 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 9. Admittedly, the eviction petition filed by the respondents was allowed by learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, vide judgement dated 17.02.2023 and Surinder Pal Kaur was directed to hand over of the vacant possession of the demised premises within a period of two months. The said judgement has become final as neither the same has ever been stayed nor set-aside by any higher Court. The present petitioner had already filed an application in the eviction petition for staying the proceedings under section 10 of CPC, which was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, vide order dated 14.01.2021 and the said order has never been questioned by the present petitioner. Once the eviction order dated 17.02.2023 has become final, the same is required to be executed. The third party objections dated 22.05.2023 preferred by the petitioner, have only been filed in collusion with the tenant just with an approach to delay the execution of the judgement dated 17.02.2023. So far as the ad interim injunction granted in the civil suit preferred by the petitioner is concerned, the same has been passed after the eviction order. The said status quo order dated 20.03.2023 cannot nullify the eviction order dated 17.02.2023 passed by the court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana, so this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Court below is quite detailed and well-reasoned and does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and is not having any element of arbitrariness or perversity. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court is quite limited and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order by way of exercising the revisional jurisdiction. 10. Finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed.