Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUDARSHAN KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sudarshan Kumar v. Union of India & Ors - CR-226-2000 [2006] RD-P&H 7716 (25 September 2006)

C.R.No.226 of 2000 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : C.R.No.226 of 2000

Date of Decision : September 20, 2006.

Sudarshan Kumar ..... Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India and others ..... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.S.Patwalia

* * *

Present : Mr.Suvir Sehgal, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr.A.K.Chopra, Senior Advocate

with Mr.Ashwani Chopra, Advocate

Ms.Ranjana Shahi, Advocate

for Union of India.

Mr.G.C.Gupta, DAG, Punjab

for State of Punjab.

Mr.Parveen Kumar, Advocate

for respondent no.4.

* * *

P.S.Patwalia, J. (Oral) :

This order will dispose of C.R.No.226 to 232 of 2000. For facility of reference facts are being taken from C.R.No.226 of 2000.

C.R.No.226 of 2000 2

The present revision has been filed challenging order dated 21.8.1996 vide which the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur accepted objections filed by Ravi Chander Uppal and others against the execution of the decree dated 16.07.1984 passed by the court of Shri M.L.Singhal, the then learned District Judge, Gurdaspur and order dated 28.8.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide which an appeal filed against the aforementioned order by the present petitioner-decree holder, was dismissed.

Briefly the facts as emerge from the orders passed by the courts below and this revision petition are that the Muslim Evacuees, during the partition of the country in the year 1947, left behind a garden and industrial establishment no.2 at Gurdaspur . The Rehabilitation Department allotted the garden to one Smt. Balwant Kaur whereas the industrial establishment no.2 was leased out to one Harbans Lal in an open auction vide order dated 19.10.1954. A dispute arose between Balwant Kaur and Harbans Lal in respect of one compound attached with industrial establishment no.2.

Harbans Lal then filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement against the Union of India which was decreed in his favour. In that decree, Harbans Lal was held entitled to use and occupy the industrial unit no.2 comprising three rooms, compound, outer alignment of the plot being 50' x 40'. The operative portion of this decree dated 28.11.1976 reads as hereunder :-

" ORDER

The Govt. pleader has made

statement on behalf of the Union of India and also Shri Ranbir Lal, Clerk of the office of settlement Commissioner, Jaselmer House, New Delhi

C.R.No.226 of 2000 3

showing readiness to complete the contract in terms of the agreement Ex.P.6 if the plaintiff deposits the amount due along with interest and the plaintiff has also made statement showing his readiness to make deposit of the amount due along with interest. Accordingly, in view of the statement of the Government pleader and the plaintiff himself, I hereby pass this decree for possession by specific performance of the agreement Ex.P.6 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant Union of India. This is however subject to the condition that the plaintiff deposits under the relevant Head the amount still due along with interest till today. The plaintiff shall make necessary application before the authorities for knowing the amount due along with interest within one month from today. He shall make deposit under the relevant Head within one month from the date the requisite information is supplied by the defendant to the plaintiff in the form of Treasury Challans duly attested. If the defendant omits to issue the sale certificate within a reasonable period thereafter, then the plaintiff shall be at liberty to get the sale certificate issued by execution of this decree. In the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared and the records C.R.No.226 of 2000 4

be consigned to the record office.

Announced

28.11.1976 Sd/-

Sub Judge Ist Class,

Gurdaspur."

Since the possession of this property for which the aforementioned decree was passed was allegedly in the occupation of some illegal occupants therefore Harbans Lal filed another civil suit against the Union of India for rendition of accounts in respect of the rent, damages and compensation realised by the Union of India from the illegal occupants.

This suit was dismissed by the trial court. Shri Harbans Lal preferred an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree which was accepted by Shri M.L.Singhal, the then Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur on 16.7.1984. The operative portion of the said decree reads as hereunder :- "13. In view of what I have stated above, this appeal succeeds and is accepted and a decree for the sum of Rs.7200/- is passed with costs throughout in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Plaintiff-appellant is entitled to mesne profits at the rate of Rs.300/- per annum from the date of the suit till he is actually restored to possession. Plaintiff-appellant shall deposit the requisite court fee payable on the claim of Rs.7200/- within 15 days from today. Decree sheet be prepared after the plaintiff pays court fee on the claim of Rs.7200/-."

C.R.No.226 of 2000 5

A reading of the aforementioned extract would show that a decree for a sum of Rs.7200/- with costs was passed in favour of the plaintiff. It was further held that the plaintiff-appellant was entitled to mesne profits at the rate of Rs.300/- per annum from the date of the suit till he is actually restored to possession.

The petitioner who is the plaintiff-decree holder in both the suits referred to herein above, then filed the present execution petition. A reading of the judgment of the Executing Court where objections were first considered would show that the execution from out of which the impugned orders in this revision petition arise, was of decree dated 16.07.1984 passed by Shri M.L.Singhal, the then learned District Judge, Gurdaspur. The portion from the aforesaid observations which appear as the opening lines of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur is as hereunder :-

"This order would dispose of the objections under Order 21 Rule 35 & 97 C.P.C. and Section 47 C.P.C. filed by the following persons against the execution of the decree dated 16.07.1984 passed by the court of Shri M.L.Singhal, Ld.Distt.

Judge, Gurdaspur."

In fact neither counsel for the petitioner before me nor counsel for the respondents could detract from the veracity of these observations.

While considering the objections the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur held that since the decree dated 16.07.1984 was only for a sum of Rs.7200/- and for mesne profits at the rate of Rs.300/- per annum. The decree holder was not entitled to possession. On this basis the objections filed by the private respondents in this revision petition against C.R.No.226 of 2000 6

warrants of possession issued by the Executing Court were accepted. The warrants were ordered to be withdrawn and attachment warrants for recovery of the monetary value of the decretal amount were ordered against the Union of India.

Aggrieved by this order of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur the decree-holder then preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. In appeal also the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur confirmed the findings of the Executing Court and held that since there was no decree for possession in favour of the decree-holder in July 1984, which was being executed in the present execution petition, warrants of possession could not be issued in favour of the decree holder.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in this revision petition has again reiterated the same contention. He states that he is entitled to possession and therefore the courts below have erred in not issuing warrants of possession.

I have gone through the decree dated 16.07.1984. There is no decree in favour of the petitioner for possession by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. Since this execution was only of the decree of 16.07.1984, I find no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. At this stage it also needs to be mentioned that though at one stage learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that this execution was for execution of both the decrees dated 28.11.1976 and 16.07.1984 however subsequently after getting further instructions he submitted that this execution was only for the execution of decree dated 16.07.1984. He had filed a separate execution petition for execution of decree dated 28.11.1976. An order was passed on 28.8.1999 vide which that petition was C.R.No.226 of 2000 7

also dismissed in the light of the order made in the present execution petition. Since it has now been clarified that this execution was only confined to decree dated 16.07.1984 the petitioner would be free to avail legal remedies, if any, available to him for execution of the decree dated 28.11.1976.

The present revision petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms.

September 20, 2006 ( P.S.Patwalia )

monika Judge


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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