Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


ROSHAN LAL v. PREM NATH JANGRA & Ors. - CR-178-2006 [2005] RD-P&H 226 (11 November 2005)

C.R.No. 178 of 2006.


C.R.No. 178 of 2006.

Date of Decision: 13.1.2006

Roshan Lal ...Petitioner.


Prem Nath Jangra and others. ...Respondents.

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.

Present: Shri G.S. Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner.


The petitioner is the objector, who has filed objections to the execution to the ejectment order passed against one Narsi Ram in an ejectment petition filed by Durga Dass.

Durga Dass has sought eviction of Narsi Ram by filing the ejectment petition in the year 1997. The same was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 27.11.2001. An appeal against the said order was dismissed by the learned appellate authority, Nawanshahr on 10.2.2003.

The execution of the said ejectment order was sought on 18.7.2003. During the pendency of the said execution application, the petitioner alleged that Durga Dass entered into fresh tenancy agreement with the petitioner on 21.12.2003 and (

C.R.No. 178 of 2006.

that he is in possession of the suit property since then. Durga Dass has died on 1.1.2004. Earlier the petitioner filed objections under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which were dismissed by the learned trial Court on 23.11.2004. In the said objections, the objector has alleged the compromise and the agreement dated 21.12.2003. It was found that when the alleged agreement was got executed by the objector, Durga Dass could have come to the Court and moved an application for withdrawal of the present application. It was further found that there is no witness to the agreement vide which possession was delivered to the objector. It was also found that that objector has not produced any other document, prima-facie, to support the contention that he is in possession of the suit property since 21.12.2003. Neither any electricity bill, ration card or any other document, has been produced to prove his case. The revision petition filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed by this Court on 19.8.2005.

The petitioner has filed the present set of objections on 12.2.2005 allegedly under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The same has been dismissed by the learned trial Court. In appeal the said order was affirmed.

The conduct of the petitioner in filing the second set of objections on similar grounds as were raised by the (

C.R.No. 178 of 2006.

petitioner earlier is a total abuse of process of law. The objections were dismissed by a detailed speaking order not only by the executing Court but were affirmed by the this Court. Soon after the decision thereof by the Executing Court, the petitioner has filed another set of objections.

The abuse of process of law is apparent and flagrant, which cannot be countenanced in any manner.

I do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the findings of the Courts below warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed.

The Executing Court is directed to take steps for delivering the possession to the Decree Holder, if necessary with the police help at the earliest.

13.1. 2006. (Hemant Gupta)

ds Judge



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.