RA No. 46 CII of 2008 1
CM No. 9929 CII of 2008 in CR 414 of 1994
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
R.A..No. 46 CII of 2008 and
CM No. 9929 CII of 2008 in
CR No. 414 of 1994
Date of decision 7 .7.2008
Municipal Committee,Ahmedgarh ...Petitioner
Versus
Daljit Singh ... Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.R.N. Raina, Advocate for the petitioner.
M.M.KUMAR, J.
This is an application filed by L.Rs. of JD- respondent under
Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 for review of order dated 18.10.2007. It is appropriate to mention that
the afore-mentioned order was passed on 18.10.2007 in CM No.17049 CII
of 2007 which in turn had sought recalling of order dated 22.8.2007 passed
by the learned Single Judge (since retired) of this Court in CR No.414 of
1994. The order dated 18.10.2007 reads thus:
” This is an application for recalling order dated 22.8.2007
passed by this Court in CR No.414 of 1994.
That order was made when none for the respondents,
now applicant had come present at least on four hearings.
Main petition was against judgement dated 20.7.2007
passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Malerkotla whereby objections
filed by legal representatives of Daljit Singh JD in execution
RA No. 46 CII of 2008 2
CM No. 9929 CII of 2008 in CR 414 of 1994
application were allowed.
It was held that Daljit Singh had earlier filed some
objections, which had been dismissed and no further objections
were maintainable. As such it was directed that the decree
holder i.e. Municipal Committee was entitled to the possession.
Decree had been passed about 24 years back .
Somehow or the other Daljit Singh had been delaying the
execution of the decree.
It is directed that notice of this application be
issued only after Rs.1,00,000/- for payment as compensation to
the Municipal Committee are deposited within 15 days. If the
amount is deposited within 15 days then the execution of the
decree shall be stayed and notice of this application be issued to
the opposite party for recalling that order.
With this observation, application stands disposed
of.”
Background facts would require a brief mention. The Municipal
Committee- non applicant had filed a suit for possession in respect of a site
as per the details given in the suit. On 16.5.1973 the suit was decreed ex-
parte against one Daljit Singh (now represented by his LRs.) who absented
after putting in appearance. Thereafter he filed an appeal which was also
dismissed. The Municipal Committee- non-applicant cum Decree holder
filed execution. Daljit Singh JD filed objections which were dismissed vide
order dated 12.8.1980 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Malerkotla. The
Municipal Committee-DH again filed execution. Daljit Singh -JD (now
represnted by LRs) filed objections which were allowed vide order dated
RA No. 46 CII of 2008 3
CM No. 9929 CII of 2008 in CR 414 of 1994
20.7.1987 and execution was dismissed. The Municipal Committee- non
applicant challenged the order in C.R.No.414 of 1994 which was allowed by
this Court on 22.8.2007 by observing as under:
” … When the suit filed by Municipal Committee had been
decreed and an appeal filed by Daljit Singh JD against that
decree was dismissed, then decree as it is, was to be executed.
When the objections filed by JD Daljit Singh had been
dismissed on 12.8.1980 holding that objections could not be
allowed, then further objections would not have been
maintainable and decree holder would have become entitled to
possession as per judgement and decree dated 16.5.1973,.
In view of the above, petition is accepted. Order dated
20.7.1987 is set aside. It is held that Municipal Committee shall
be entitled to execution of the decree as decreed vide
judgement dated 16.5.1973.”
It is also pertinent to notice that Daljit Singh had expired and his legal
representatives did not appear as has been recorded in the above mentioned
order.
It was thereafter that C.M. No.17049 CII of 2007 was filed on
which order dated 18.10.2007 was passed. The learned Single Judge has
noticed that the decree holder has not been able to execute the decree for
more than 24 years as the applicant Daljit Singh JD (now represented
through his LRs ) has been delaying the execution of the decree on pre-
posterous grounds. Accordingly a condition was imposed for payment of
Rs. One lac as compensation to the Municipal Committee for the issuance of
notice of the application if the said amount was deposited within 15 days.
RA No. 46 CII of 2008 4
CM No. 9929 CII of 2008 in CR 414 of 1994
The payment of Rs. One lac was obviously subject to the result of the
decision of the case.
Mr. R.N.Raina, learned counsel for the applicant Daljit Singh
JD (now represented through his L.Rs.) has submitted that amount of Rs.
One lac has not been paid. He has infact insisted that the order dated
18.10.2007 should be recalled because there was no reason for the learned
Single Judge to pass such an order.
Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the considered
view that the applicant Daljit Singh JD (now represented through his LRs)
was a chronic litigant and had dragged the decree holder Municipal
Committee in long drawn litigation. It is patent from the record that the
objection filed by the applicant-JD were dismissed on 12.8.1980 and there
was no scope for him to file objection once again which were allowed on
20.7.1987. Accordingly, the C.R.No. 414 of 1994 has been rightly allowed.
The applicant- JD has failed to pay the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Therefore,
we do not find any legal infirmity in the orders dated 22.8.2007 and
18.10.2007. The application is wholly without merit which is accordingly
dismissed.
In view of the fact that we have dismissed the application on
merits, we do not feel the necessity to pass any order on C.M.No. 9929 CII
of 2008 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963.
(M.M.Kumar)
Judge
(Sabina)
7.7.2008 Judge
okg