Back
ANIL KSHETARPAL
Gurbax Singh – Appellant
Versus
Sohan Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
1. This execution second appeal has been filed against the concurrent order passed by the Executing Court which in first appeal has been affirmed by the first appellate court.
2. By virtue of ex-parte decree dated 18.09.2013, the respondents were restrained from interfering in the appellant’s possession with respect to 1/4th share of plot measuring 4 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 809/728, khasra no. 195//7/2. It is evident that the appellant was co-sharer along with Smt. Harnam Kaur widow of Sh. Dhanna Singh, Sh. Ajaib Singh and Smt. Jangiro daughter of Sh. Dhanna Singh, who were having 1/4th share each. After passage of one year from the date of decree, the appellant filed an application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC complaining wilful violation of the decree which was disputed by the respondents.
3. Upon appreciation of the evidence, both the courts have found that the appellant has failed to mention even the date, time or place when the Judgment Debtors demolished the wall of his house. It has further been found that the injunction was granted to the appellant only with respect to one marla plot, whereas in the site plan annexed with the application, the
To initiate proceedings under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC, specific details of the alleged violation must be provided, which the appellant failed to do.
The principle of 'interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium' - there should be a limit to the litigation.
The petitioner failed to prove illegal dispossession under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC, leading to the dismissal of her application for execution of the decree.
The executing court has jurisdiction to enforce decrees, including injunctions, and can act against violations by judgment debtors.
The court upheld the legality of an ex-parte order for encroachment due to the petitioner's failure to present evidence, affirming the Executing Court's findings.
The executing court must follow the procedure laid down under Rule 32 Order 21 CPC and grant an opportunity to the petitioners to show cause regarding any disobedience of the decree.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decree of permanent injunction is binding on all parties, and relief can be sought under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure ....
The court affirmed that prohibitory injunctions can be enforced despite ongoing disputes, ensuring that decree holders can secure their rights.
The Execution Court has broad powers under Order XXI Rule 32 to enforce decrees, including mandatory injunctions, and objections regarding executability are unfounded.
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
