Dev Raj v. Parkash Ram & Anr

CR-7084-2014o o 1 2023:PHHC:103327ooo INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANA AToCHANDIGARH 104 CR-7084-2014o Decidedoono:o09.08.2023 DEVoRAJ .o.o.oPetitioner Versus PARKASHoRAMo&oANR .o.o.ooRespondents CORAM:o HON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoSANJAYoVASHISTH Present: Mr.oSanjayoMajithia,oSenioroAdvocateowitho Mr.oSumitoSinha,oAdvocateo forotheopetitioner. Ms.oSatpreetoGrewaloKapila,oAdvocateo forotheorespondents. **** oSANJAYoVASHISTHoo,oJ.o(Oral)o

¶1Petitionero(decreeoholder)-DevoRajohasofiledopresentorevision petition,ochallengingoorderodatedo23.08.2014opassedobyotheoExecutingoCourt inotheoexecutionopetition,owhereby,oapplicationofiledobyotheopetitioner/decree holderounderoOrdero21oRuleo32oCPCowasodismissed.o Briefofactsoofotheoapplicationofiledobyotheodecreeoholderosaysoas under:- "BriefofactsoofotheoapplicationoisothatotheoDH/ ApplicantohasofiledoCiviloSuitoNo.o172oofo19.04.1995 againstotheoJDS/odefendantsoforo"MandatoryoInjunction" directing o the o defendants o to o remove o the o illegal o and unlawful o construction o raised oin o theo passageo bearing Khasra o No. o 160 o Khatoni o No.o 127 o Khewat o No. o 421 situatedoinoVillageoBarchha,oHBoNO.o83,oTehsiloDasuya, DistrictoHoshiarpuroandotoorestoreotheopassageoinotooits originaloposition.oThatotheoaboveosaidoCiviloSuitowas CR-7084-2014o o 2 2023:PHHC:103327ooo decided by Mrs. Sukhwinder Kaur, PCS, Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Dasuya and the same was decreed by judgment and decree dated 27.11.1998 and the defendants were directed to remove the illegal and unlawful construction from the passage in suit within two months from the date of judgment and decree. That the defendants assailed the impugned judgment and decree in the appellate court and during the pendency of the appeal a compromise was affected between the parties on 23.02.2001 and compromise was Ex. A1. The counsel for the applicants and the respondents made statement in the ld. Appellate Court and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on

04.09.2003. That the execution filed by the DH in respect of the judgment and decree dated 27.11.1998 was pending in the executing court. In the execution JDS filed an application 21 Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for recording the satisfaction of decree being adjusted and satisfied arguments hared on the application and the application was allowed by this court vide order dated

24.03.2008. That the JDS are head strong persons and they again on 05.11.2008 illegally and forcibly encroached upon the street by way of raising wall which was vacated as per the compromise and the fresh encroachment has been shown in the attached site plan in red color and devoted within letters ABCD to which they have no right to encroach upon the some and they are legally bound to vacate the same as a decree of mandatory injunction was passed by the court. That the JDS have subsequently raised the wall in the street and legally they have no right to encroach upon the passage in dispute by way of raising wall and in this way JDs have disobeyed the decree of mandatory injunction passed on 27.11.1998, hence, the present application." LAVISHA -. 6n o issuin, o noti!e o to o the o respondents5jud,#ent o de2tors, CR-7084-2014o o 3 2023:PHHC:103327ooo preliminaryoobjectionsowereoraisedothatotheoapplicationoisobarredobyothe principleoofores-judicataoestoppedobyohisoownoactsoandoconduct,oacquiescence andoadmissions.oOnomerits,oitowasosubmittedothatotheofirstoexecutionopetition wasodisposedoof,obeingofullyosatisfied,oonotheobasisoofotheocompromiseodated

23.02.2001obetweenotheodecreeoholderoandojudgmentodebtors.oThisoway,oit wasofurtheroobjectedothatojudgmentoandodecreeodatedo27.11.1998owasofully disposedoofoafterobeingosatisfiedovideoorderodatedo04.09.2003.o

¶3Forotheoreasonoofoagainoraisingotheowalloandoobstructingothe commonopath,osecondoapplicationoi.e.otheopresentoone,owasoinstitutedobyothe decreeoholderobutosameohasobeenodismissedobyotheoCourtobyoobservingothat applicantohasofailedoinoprovingotheoviolationoofotheodecreeobyoraisingotheowall againobyotheojudgmentodebtors.oWhileoobservingoso,oaoreportoofodemarcation conductedobyoGursewakoChandoNaiboTehsildarowasoconsideredoandotheosame wasonotoaccepted.

¶4Itohasoalsoobeenoobservedothatothereoisonoodocumentowithothe NaiboTehsildar,owhoodemarcatedotheosite,otoosayothatotheojudgmentodebtors wereoservedoanyonoticeobeforeoconductingotheodemarcation,othough,othe signaturesowereoappearingoonotheodemarcationoreportodatedo12.12.2008,oas pointedooutobyotheocounseloforotheopetitionero(decreeoholder).o

¶5Onotheootherohand,ocounseloforotheorespondentso(judgment debtors) o submits o that o the o present o application, o which o is o the o second application,ofiledobyotheodecreeoholderoforoexecutionoofotheodecreeoisonot maintainable,oasoperolaw.oEven,otheolimitationoofothreeoyearsohadoexpiredoby theotimeosecondoapplicationowasoinstituted.oHowever,oafteroseekingorequired instructionsofromotheojudgmentodebtors,ocounselosubmitsothatoasoonoday,othere isonooviolationoofotheojudgmentoandodecreeodatedo27.11.1998oandotheoposition CR-7084-2014o o 4 2023:PHHC:103327ooo onotheospotoisotheosameoasoitowasoatotheotimeoofotheocompromiseobetweenothe decreeoholderoandojudgmentodebtors.

¶6LearnedoSeniorocounseloforotheopetitionerocitesotheojudgmentoof thisoCourto(PunjaboandoHaryanaoHighoCourt)oi.e. o"SurinderoSinghov. BalwantoSingho(dead)othroughoLRsoandootherso2017o(2)oR.C.R.o(Civil) 452"oandosubmitsothatowhileodealingowithotheosimilarosituation,othisoCourtohas made o certain o observations o which o are o applicable o to o the o facts o and circumstancesoofotheopresentocase/revisionopetitionoalso.o

¶7Heoalsoopointsooutothatoafterotakingonoteoofotheoamendmentoin sub-Ruleo(v)oofoRuleo32oCPC,ointroducedowithoeffectofromo01.07.2002,oCourt hasocoveredoprohibitoryoasowelloasomandatoryoinjunctions,oforoentertaining suchoapplicationsoevenosecondotime.

¶8Court o has o even o observed o that o decree o holder o cannot o be compelledotoofileoanotherosuitoforoit,owhichowouldomultiplyotheolitigation discouragingotheopublicopolicy. Thus,othisoCourtoisoofotheoviewothatothisoobservationomadeobyothe Co-ordinateoBenchoofothisoCourtoisoinoconsonanceowithotheoprincipleo"interest reipublicaeoutositofinisolitium"owhichomeansothatoitoisoinotheointerestoofothe Stateothatothereoshouldobeoaolimitotootheolitigation.o

¶9Operativeopartoofotheoparao4otoo8oofotheocitedojudgmentosaysoas under"- "[4].oForoattractingoactionoinoexecutionoofojudgmentoand decreeounderoOrdero21oRuleo32oCPC,oviolationohasotoobe provedobyotheodecree-holder.oMereopassingoreferenceoto sayothatotheojudgment-debtorowasonotoboundobyotheodecree cannotobeotakenotoobeoanoinstanceoofoallegedoviolation.oIt isotrueothat,oevenoif,othereoisonooviolationoofotheodecreeoas LAVISHA onodateoinotermsoofospecificoinstance,othatoitselfowillonot CR-7084-2014o o 7 2023:PHHC:103327ooo preclude the decree=holder from taking action in terms of Order 21 Rule 32 CPC at a subsequent stage, when such an occurrence takes place. The decree=holder cannot be compelled to file another suit so as to seek fresh restraint order against the judgment=debtor. [5]. Explanation was added to sub=Rule (v) of Rule 32 CPC by way of amendment w.e.f. 01.07.2002. It has been declared that the expression "the act required to be done" covers prohibitory as well as mandatory instructions. The intended object was to give full effect to the decree.oIn Gurcharan Singh and another vs. Gurudwara Shri Singh Sabha (Regd.) Sectoro19=D, Chandigarh, 2004(2) PLR 330, this Court after considering recommendations of the Law Commission on the 3 of 6opoint in issue and the explanation added to Order 21 Rule 32 CPC by way of amendment observed in the following manner:= "15. It is in view of the afore=mentioned historical perspective that the order dated 23.2.2004 passed by the Civil Judge has to be examined. The expression 'act required to be done' has, been extended to prohibitory as well as mandatory injunctions. The view taken by the Full Bench of Delhi High Court has been treated as a narrower view because that was a case, in which the decree against the licensee was to quit and vacate the premises but the High Court by taking a narrower view expressed its inability to invoke Order 21 Rule 32(5). Therefore, the question posed by the Law Commission, which led to the recommendation for adopting wider view has been accepted by inserting explanation to Sub=rule

(5). The decree=holder is not required to file another suit when he has already acquired a decree in his favour by spending much time and expense. The Court, therefore, would be fully competent to direct that the act required to be done may be done so far as practicable either by the LAVISHA decree holder himself or by some other person appointed CR-7084-2014o o 9 2023:PHHC:103327ooo by the Court at the cost of judgment=debtor. In the instant execution of the decree for mandatory injunction, where the possession is sought from a licensee. The aforesaid order is consistent with the spirit of law and the explanation added as per the recommendation made by the Law Commission. The direction to vacate the premises situated in the Gurudwara Sahib where the judgment=debtor petitioners were allowed to stay being the sewadars is another form and method to direct hand over of possession. Tweedledes is Tweedledum. It can mean 4 of 6onothing else except the handing over of possession and, therefore, the wider view as suggested by the Law Commission has to be followed because it serves the ends of justice. The decree cannot be defeated by raising technical objections. It is well settled that technicalities of law should be construed to advance justice and not to defeat justice. With utmost defence to the ld. judges, I am of the view that the ratio of the judgment of the Full Bench of Delhi High Court in Sarup Singh's case (supra) stands considerably watered down by Explanation added to Subrule 5 of Rule 32 of Order

¶21The wider view preferred by Allahabad High Court in Harihar Pandey's case (supra) has rightly held that the decree holder cannot be compelled to file another suit for it would multiply litigation which course public policy would discourage. Courts cannot be party to the illegal designs of a Judgment debtor who wishes to carry on with his illegal possession. The ground realities propagated by Realist School of Thoughts led by Jurist like Karl Llwewllyn must dawn on the parties to litigation and substantial justice must be done. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by Civil Judge. The petition is liable to be dismissed. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same LAVISHA is dismissed." CR-7084-2014o o 7 2023:PHHC:103327ooo [6].oTheoresultantoeffectowouldocomeotootheoeffectothatothe decree-holderocannotobeocompelledotoofileoanotherosuitofor itowouldomultiplyolitigationowhichocourseopublicopolicy wouldodiscourage. [7].oItoisoobservedothatoasoonodateonooactionoisowarranted 5oofo6ounderoOrdero21oRuleo32oCPC,obutothatodoesonot preclude o the o decree-holder o from o initiating o the proceedings,oifoviolationoofotheodecreeotakesoplaceoin future,oforowhichodecree-holderocannotobeocompelledoto fileoanotherosuitoforoseekingofreshorestraintoorderoagainst theojudgment-debtor.oThereoareomanyoreasonsoforosuch indulgenceotootheodecree-holder. [8].oInoviewoofoaforesaid,oIoamoofotheoviewothatoatothis juncture,onoointerferenceoisocalledoforoinotheoimpugned order.oThisorevisionopetitionoisoaccordinglyodisposedoof."

10.o AfterotakingonoteoofotheocitedojudgmentoofoSurinder'soSingh (supra),othisoCourtoisoinoagreementowithotheosubmissionsomadeobyothe petitionero(decreeoholder)oandothus,ofindsothatotheoobservationsomadeobyothe Courtobelow,oinoregardotootheonon-maintainabilityoofotheosecondoapplication, isoincorrect.

¶11Therefore,osaidofindingoisosetoaside.oHowever,oatothisostage, learnedoSeniorocounselouponoinstructionsosubmitsothatothough,osufficient materialoisothereoinotheofirstodemarcationoreportostillosameohasobeenoaccepted byotheoExecutingoCourt,oyet,opetitionero(decreeoholder)oisoreadyotoopayothe requiredoexpenses,oifounderotheodirectionoofothisoCourt,ofreshodemarcationois conductedobyoaocompetentoRevenueoOfficer.o Saidopleaohasonotoevenobeenoopposedobyocounseloforothe respondentso(judgmentodebtors).o

¶12Therefore, o in o these o circumstances, o this o Court o deems o it CR-7084-2014o o 8 2023:PHHC:103327ooo appropriateotoosetoasideotheoorderodatedo23.08.2014oandoremitsotheomatter backotootheoExecutingoCourtotootakeoaofreshodecisionoonotheosecond applicationomovedobyotheodecreeoholder.

¶13However,obeforeotakingoanyosuchodecision,oCourtowouldoappoint someocompetentorevenueoofficialotoovisitoandodemarcateotheospot,oasoperolaw andothen,otoosubmitohis/heroreportobeforeotheoExecutingoCourt.oCourtowould alsooexamineowhetherotheosituationowhichowasothereoatotheotimeoofothe disposaloofotheofirstoexecutionoapplicationostilloexistsooronot.oIfoitoisofoundothat judgmentodebtorsohaveoagainoencroachedouponotheocommonopath/disputed siteoinoviolationoofotheocompromiseobetweenotheopartiesoandosatisfactionoof theoexecutionoapplicationoatotheofirstoinstance,oconsideringotheoconductoofothe judgmentodebtors,oexemplaryocostsoshouldobeoimposed,oaccordingotoolaw. ThisoCourtowouldoexpectothatoaofreshodecisionowouldobeotakenobyothe ExecutingoCourtowithinofouromonthsofromotodayoafterofollowingoallotheodue courses,oprescribedobyotheolaw.

¶14ChargesofixedobyotheoExecutingoCourtowouldobeopaid/deposited byotheodecreeoholderowithinoaoweekoofoanyosuchoorderopassedobyotheoCourt.

¶15Disposedoof.o (SANJAYoVASHISTH) JUDGE Augusto09,o2023 Lavisha Whetherospeaking/reasoned: ooYes/No WhetheroReportable: ooooooooooooooYes/No