The main legal point established in the judgment is that the learned Executing Court's act of arbitrarily recalling the order for framing issues without any challenge or opportunity for the parties was not sustainable in law.

JUDGMENT

Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

"It is, therefore, prayed that the petition may kindly be allowed in view of the submission made here in above and order dated 13.06.2019 (Annexure P-4) passed in Ex. Petition No. 29/2004 titled as Surtu Devi vs. Sukh Ram may be ordered to be set aside and quashed in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:-

A decree for possession of land bearing Khasra No. 805, measuring 3-12-17 bighas and Khasra No. 899, measuring 2-1-2 bighas, situated in Mohal Darat Bagla, Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P. has been passed in favour of the respondent/Decree Holder by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jogindernagar, on 30.11.2012, which judgment has attained finality as the appeal preferred against the same by the defendant stood dismissed. These facts are not in dispute. Thereafter an execution petition was filed by present respondent/Decree Holder for the execution of the decree. Vide Annexure P-2, Objections were filed against the same by the present petitioner/Judgment debtor, inter alia taking the stand that after the passing of the judgment, the matter stood compromised between the Decree Holder and the Judgment Debtor and Decree Holder had held out that the decree shall not be executed and that the suit land shall be partitioned. In the reply, which was filed to the Objections by the Decree Holder, it was specifically denied that any compromise was ever entered into between the parties. Record demonstrates that thereafter the matter was listed on several dates before the learned Executing Court for consideration.

3. On 07.03.2017, the objections were heard and the case was ordered to be listed for orders on objections on 29.03.2017. However, on 29.03.2017, no orders were pronounced on the objections and rather the learned Executing Court passed by the following order:

"The case is listed for order on objection. However, issues are not yet framed. Now to come up for settlement of issues on 20.05.2017."

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite a specific express order having been passed by the Court that Issues were required to be framed, on 07.05.2019, learned Executing Court, all of a sudden, passed the following effect:-

"The case was inadvertently listed for determination of points, however, there is no need of determination of point. Let case be listed for consideration on 30.05.2019."

5. Thereafter, impugned order dated 13.06.2019 has been passed vide which the objections filed by the petitioner have been dismissed and warrant of possession has been ordered to be issued.

6. Mr. B.S. Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that once learned Executing Court, in its wisdom, on 29.03.2017, had ordered the framing of Issues, then, the act of the learned Executing Court of unilaterally and suo motu reviewing the same vide order dated 07.05.2019 is not sustainable in law because no reasons stand mentioned by the learned Executing Court in its order dated 07.05.2019 as to why there was a change in heart and as to why learned Executing Court was of the view that the case was inadvertently listed for determination of points on previous occasion. Learned Senior Counsel has argued that once there was an order for framing of Issues, then, learned Executing Court was bound to have had framed the Issues and after calling upon the parties to record their evidence in support of their respective contentions qua the Issues, appropriate order should have been passed by the learned Executing Court on the Objections. Failure on the part of the learned Executing Court to do so, has resulted in grave injustice to the petitioner, and in this background, learned Senior Counsel submits that the impugned order be set aside and the case be remanded back to t