Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIKAS BAHL
Mohammad Nadeem – Appellant
Versus
Dinesh Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIKAS BAHL, J.
1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Malerkotla, vide which the objection application dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure P-4) filed by the petitioner/third party has been rejected.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent no.2, who is the landlord, had sought eviction of respondent no.1, who is the original tenant and vide judgment dated 30.01.2017 the order of eviction was passed. It is submitted that subsequently the execution petition was filed and in the execution proceedings, the possession was taken by the said landlord on 11.05.2017 and thereafter respondent no.2 executed a registered lease deed dated 14.06.2017 in favour of the present petitioner and thus, the petitioner became the tenant of the premises in question. It is submitted that subsequently respondent no.1 filed an application for recalling the order of warrants of possession, which was allowed and the said order was recalled on 11.05.2017 but since respondent no.2 had already taken possession,
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.
A revision petition becomes infructuous when possession of the tenanted premises has been restored to the landlord, limiting the High Court's role to procedural compliance.
Once an issue has been adjudicated in court, it cannot be re-litigated in later proceedings, maintaining the authority of previous judgments on the same matter.
A revision petition becomes infructuous when possession of the tenanted premises has been restored to the landlord, limiting the High Court's role to procedural compliance.
The main legal point established is that valid reasons for failing to contest proceedings, such as the petitioner's purchase under the SARFAESI Act, can influence the court to set aside orders and di....
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
