Rajinder Singh Vs Joginder Singh and Others

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh 31 Mar 2011 CR No. 6962 of 2010 (O and M)
Bench: Single Bench
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

CR No. 6962 of 2010 (O and M)

Hon'ble Bench

Ram Chand Gupta, J

Acts Referred

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 151#Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227

Judgement Text

Translate:

Ram Chand Gupta, J.@mdashThe present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of

the CPC for setting aside orders dated 17.1.2009 and 12.12.2009 (Annexures P-3 & P-4 respectively) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior

Division), Sonepat and order dated 30.9.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat.

2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned

trial court as well as the first appellate court.

3. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that objection petition filed by the Petitioner has not been decided so far and

however, warrant of possession was issued.

4. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 26.10.2010 passed the following order:

Heard.

It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the objection petition filed by the Petitioner has still not been decided by the

executing court and that he had a good cause for not appearing when the objection petition was called.

Even if the ex-party proceedings have not been set aside against the Petitioner, he could have joined the proceedings at any stage and as such the

executing court was required to decide the objection petition.

Notice of motion for 9.12.2010.

In the meanwhile, the warrant of possession shall not be executed in respect of the plot of the Petitioner bearing Plot No. 168.

5. It has been contended by learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 that he is having no objection if the executing court is directed to decide the

objection petition of the Petitioner on merit and however, it is further contended that Petitioner is adopting delaying tactics and a decree dated

19.3.1986 has not been executed so far, though the execution petition was filed on 30.10.1999.

6. Hence, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is disposed of with a direction to learned executing court to decide the objection

petition filed by the Petitioner expeditiously and efforts be made to decide the same within three months from the date of receipt of the certified

copy of this order.

From The Blog
Supreme Court: 8-Year Service Termination Cannot Be Justified
Oct
23
2025

Story

Supreme Court: 8-Year Service Termination Cannot Be Justified
Read More
Supreme Court Asks Centre to Respond on Online Gambling Ban
Oct
23
2025

Story

Supreme Court Asks Centre to Respond on Online Gambling Ban
Read More