The principle of 'interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium' - there should be a limit to the litigation.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Vashisth, J.

1. Petitioner (decree holder)-Dev Raj has filed present revision petition, challenging order dated 23.08.2014 passed by the Executing Court in the execution petition, whereby, application filed by the petitioner/decree holder under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC was dismissed.

Brief facts of the application filed by the decree holder says as under:-

“Brief facts of the application is that the DH/ Applicant has filed Civil Suit No. 172 of 19.04.1995 against the JDS/ defendants for "Mandatory Injunction" directing the defendants to remove the illegal and unlawful construction raised in the passage bearing Khasra No. 160 Khatoni No. 127 Khewat No. 421 situated in Village Barchha, HB NO. 83, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur and to restore the passage in to its original position. That the above said Civil Suit was decided by Mrs. Sukhwinder Kaur, PCS, Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Dasuya and the same was decreed by judgment and decree dated 27.11.1998 and the defendants were directed to remove the illegal and unlawful construction from the passage in suit within two months from the date of judgment and decree. That the defendants assailed the impugned judgment and decree in the appellate court and during the pendency of the appeal a compromise was affected between the parties on 23.02.2001 and compromise was Ex. A1. The counsel for the applicants and the respondents made statement in the ld. Appellate Court and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 04.09.2003. That the execution filed by the DH in respect of the judgment and decree dated 27.11.1998 was pending in the executing court. In the execution JDS filed an application 21 Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for recording the satisfaction of decree being adjusted and satisfied arguments hared on the application and the application was allowed by this court vide order dated 24.03.2008. That the JDS are head strong persons and they again on 05.11.2008 illegally and forcibly encroached upon the street by way of raising wall which was vacated as per the compromise and the fresh encroachment has been shown in the attached site plan in red color and devoted within letters ABCD to which they have no right to encroach upon the some and they are legally bound to vacate the same as a decree of mandatory injunction was passed by the court. That the JDS have subsequently raised the wall in the street and legally they have no right to encroach upon the passage in dispute by way of raising wall and in this way JDs have disobeyed the decree of mandatory injunction passed on 27.11.1998, hence, the present application.”

2. On issuing notice to the respondents/judgment debtors, preliminary objections were raised that the application is barred by the principle of res-judicata estopped by his own acts and conduct, acquiescence and admissions. On merits, it was submitted that the first execution petition was disposed of, being fully satisfied, on the basis of the compromise dated 23.02.2001 between the decree holder and judgment debtors. This way, it was further objected that judgment and decree dated 27.11.1998 was fully disposed of after being satisfied vide order dated 04.09.2003.

3. For the reason of again raising the wall and obstructing the common path, second application i.e. the present one, was instituted by the decree holder but same has been dismissed by the Court by observing that applicant has failed in proving the violation of the decree by raising the wall again by the judgment debtors. While observing so, a report of demarcation conducted by Gursewak Chand Naib Tehsildar was considered and the same was not accepted.

4. It has also been observed that there is no document with the Naib Tehsildar, who demarcated the site, to say that the judgment debtors were served any notice before conducting the demarcation, though, the signatures were appearing on the demarcation report dated 12.12.2008, as pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner (decree holder).

5. On the other