IMPORTANT POINTS
An amendment, even if retroactive would apply to pending proceedings only and not to the lis which has attained finality.
Amending Act applicable to State of Punjab cannot be applied to State of Haryana unless extended to State of Haryana by adaptation. (Para 23)
Executing court cannot go behind the decree.

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

This appeal is filed by the judgment-debtors (defendants) against the final judgment and order dated 04.08.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.R. No. 3823 of 2005 whereby the High Court dismissed the civil revision filed by the appellants herein against the order dated 16.07.2005 of the Additional District Judge, Jagadhri which upheld the order of the executing Court dated 12.05.2005.

2. We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal.

3. The proceedings, which are traveled to this Court in appeal, arise out of the execution initiated by the respondents(plaintiffs/decree-holders) against the appellants(defendants/judgment-debtors) in relation to suit land (agriculture) bearing Kill Nos. 1/19, 1/22, 1/23, 1/24 and 2 measuring 119 Kanals 7 Marlas situated in village Isharpur, Tahsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar on the basis of the judgment and decree dated 14.05.1965 passed by Additional District Judge (II), Ambala in Appeal No. 185 of 17.02.1964 which arose out of Civil Suit No. 461/1962 decided on 27.11.1963 in respondents' favour.

4. The respondents filed a civil suit against the appellants' predecessor-Lekhraj seeking a declaration and other consequential reliefs in relation to the aforementioned suit land. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs asserting inter alia their customary rights which were, at the relevant time, recognized in law in the suit land for claiming reliefs against the defendants.

5. Though the suit came to be dismissed by the Trial Court, it was decreed in an appeal filed by the plaintiffs by the Additional District Judge(II) Ambala vide appellate judgment/decree dated 14.05.1965 as detailed above. This appellate decree became final because the defendants did not further challenge the decree in second appeal.

6. The operative portion of the appellate judgment/decree, which resulted in decreeing the plaintiffs' suit, reads as under:

"6.............. In view of my finding above, I, therefore, hereby setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court accept the appeal and grant the plaintiffs a declaration that the sale of the land in dispute by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 shall not effect the rights of inheritance after the death of their father Kanshi Ram and that they shall be entitled to its possession on his death on payment of Rs. 2000/- to defendant No.1. In case they do not want to avail of the decree as is granted to them for declaration, they shall be entitled to possession of the land in dispute on payment of Rs. 5000/- to defendant No.1 which shall be deposited by them on or before 14/6/65. The parties shall bear their own costs throughout."

7. It is this decree, which was put in execution by the decree holders (respondents herein) against the appellants (judgment-debtors) in the Executing Court. The appellants, on being noticed, entered appearance and raised several objections to the execution of the decree.

8. According to the appellants, first, the execution application filed by the respondents was barred by time; second, the father of the decree holders having purchased another property in exercise of his right of pre-emption through sale deed, the decree in question had become unexecutable; third, no notice of the proceedings was served on the appellants and hence execution application was not maintainable; fourth, the decree holders having failed to deposit the money in terms of the decree, they had lost their right to file the execution application; fifth, since in the meantime, the judgment-debtors made investment in the suit land and made it cultivable by planting the trees/crops and also installed the tube-well, the decree became unexecutable against them; sixth, the suit land being in joint ownership of several parties so long as it was not partitioned amongst all the co-owners, the decree holders had no right to claim any right in the suit land. These were essential