Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ISHWAR CHAND versus NAR SINGH & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ishwar Chand v. Nar singh & Ors - CR-1267-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 4613 (21 July 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

C.R. No.1267 of 2004

Date of decision:25-7-2006

Ishwar Chand ..........Petitioner

Versus

Nar singh and others ..........Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vinod K.Sharma
Present: Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Rajinder Goel,Advocate, for the respondents.

VINOD K.SHARMA,J.

This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 4- 3-2004 passed by the Additional Distict Judge, Kaithal, vide which order dated 16-2-2004 passed by the executing Court was confirmed and objections filed by the petitioner were rejected and a warrant of possession was issued.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, as a matter of fact, the decree holder had no claim to the property as his right of tenancy under the Wakf Board was extinguished much prior to his filing of the suit.

The petitioner further claims that he was a tenant directly under the Wakf Board, the owner of the property. Therefore, his objections ought to have been accepted. It is not in dispute that the plea of of the petitioner that he was a tenant directly under the Wakf Board was not believed and in spite of the plea taken by him, the suit of the decree holder for possession and recovery was decreed which was upheld even upto this Court. The petitioner C.R. No.1287 of 2004

by way of present objection petition seeks to re-agitate the matter only on the plea that it was for the plaintiff to have disclosed the correct title and once he has not done, it was for the executing Court to consider his objections after the parties are given opportunity of being heard.

After haring the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the revision petition. The executing Court cannot go behind the decree. In any case, the petitioner, who was inducted as a tenant under the decree holder, has no right to challenge the title of the landlord.

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

July 25 ,2006 (VINOD K.SHARMA)

'dls' 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.