Anand Shukla VS Murti Mittal

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

RAM CHAND GUPTA
Anand Shukla – Appellant
Versus
Murti Mittal – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Raj Kumar Rana, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of thc Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 29.05.2010, Annexure P9, and order dated 12.10.2009, Annexure P7, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ambala Cantt., in execution proceedings instituted by respondent-decree holder against present petitioners.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned orders passed by learned trial Court.

3. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for permanent injunction was filed by respondent-decree holder against the present petitioners-judgment debtors in respect of common street shown in red and marked by letters. ‘ABCD’ in the site plan, situated between House Nos.6352/10/2, 3, 4 and 63-52/10/1 at Nicholson Road, Ambala Cantt.

4. Suit was contested by present petitioners-defendants. However, the same was decreed in favour of respondent-plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 1.12.1999 and 2.12.1999 respectively, Annexure P4. The said judgment and decree have become final. Hence, execution application has bee