Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SATYEN VAIDYA
Bhupinder Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Mahadev Gupta – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. tenant suit decreed for possession post-demolition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. debtors object decree inexecutability due vagueness. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. warrants fail; reports confirm shop non-existence. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. prior dismissal final; cannot re-agitate identity. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. decree executable; reconstruction via restitution. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. revision dismissed with costs. (Para 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, Judge:
The petitioners/JDs have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “CPC”) against the order dated 05.04.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kasauli, District Solan (H.P.), in Execution Petition No. 1348 of 2019, CNR No. HP S0100003592019.
2. Facts in brief are that the respondent/DH was a tenant in a shop situated in Mauza Dhangyar, P.O. Parwanoo, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P., measuring 2.28 x 3.19 square meters (for short, “the shop”). The petitioners/JDs were the owners of the shop.
3. The respondent/DH filed a suit bearing No. 89/1/2008 against the petitioners/JDs in the Court of the learned C
Executing court cannot revisit decree executability on identification grounds adjudicated earlier; must enforce as stands, applying restitution for demolished possession via reconstruction.
The Executing Court must execute decrees as per their terms without questioning merits or introducing new factual disputes.
Executing Court cannot dismiss execution case on technical grounds.
Point of Law : Court cannot go beyond the decree and has to execute the decree as it is and the legality or validity of the decree cannot be the subject matter
The court established that objections to execution based on prior claims are barred by res-judicata, and the executing court cannot entertain repetitive claims without new evidence.
Rule 35 of Order 21 deals with modes of executing a decree for possession of immovable properties.
The Small Cause Court can adjudicate incidental title issues in eviction proceedings, but such findings do not operate as res judicata in subsequent civil suits.
The executing court affirmed that a valid compromise decree must be executed regardless of the landlords' objections, emphasizing the importance of compliance with contractual obligations.
Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act is not applicable to the transaction covered by Ex.A1 with reference to the claim of the 2nd appellant in O.S.No.431 of 1969 and also held the question of adver....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
