IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

129 CR-2-2025(O&M)

Date of order: 07.01.2025 Juhruddin & Others …..Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Abdul Rajjak & Others …..Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr.Akshay Kumar Jindal, Advocate for the petitioners.

*****

Nidhi Gupta, J.

Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated

16.11.2024 (Annexure P10) whereby application filed by the petitioners/third party objectors for giving opportunity to press the objections/restoration of the objections, has been dismissed; AND setting aside the order dated 13.09.2023 (Annexure P11) vide which third party objections of the petitioners, has been dismissed as not pressed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the third party objections of the petitioners have been wrongly dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 13.09.2023 (Annexure P11), as, a perusal of the zimni orders (Annexure P7) reveals that the matter was adjourned on 05.08.2023 and 17.08.2023 in view of the prevailing law and order situation in the area as well as imposition of curfew/Section 144 Cr.P.C. because of which none had appeared before the Court on 13.9.2023. It is submitted that in view of this fact, even the application filed by the petitioners for restoration of the said objections, has been wrongly dismissed vide the impugned order dated 16.11.2024 (Annexure P10).

3. Heard.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents No.2 to 4/defendants for restraining the respondents No.2 to 4 from interfering in the peaceful possession of respondent No.1 over the suit land. The respondents No.2 to 4 had contested the suit and filed a joint written statement stating that the defendants/respondents No.2 to 4 are actual owners in possession of suit land. Subsequently, the suit filed by respondent No.1 was decreed in favour of respondent No.1 vide judgment dated 11.06.2012 (Annexure P1) and respondents No.2 to 4 were restrained from interfering in the possession of the respondent No.1/plaintiff. Even appeal against judgment dated 11.06.2012 was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 24.12.2012 (Annexure P2). Subsequently, execution petition (Annexure P3) was filed by the plaintiff/decree holder/respondent No.1 in which the respondents No.2 to 4 were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 06.05.2017 (Annexure P4). In the said execution petition, the petitioners had filed third party objections on 06.05.2017 (Annexure P5). The respondent No.1/decree holder had duly filed reply to the objections dated 06.05.2017 (Annexure P6). However, as per the record, the petitioners failed to appear before the learned Executing Court. Accordingly, on

06.09.2023, following order was passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur Jhirka:-

“Today, case called several times since morning but counsel for the applicants/third party objectors has not come present before this court. In the interest of justice, now to come up on 13.09.2023 for awaiting presence of applicant/third party objectors and for further proceedings.”.

5. On 13.09.2023, as the petitioners again failed to put in appearance, the third-party objections filed by them were dismissed as not pressed; and following order was passed: -

“Today the case was fixed for presence of applicants/third party objectors in view of order dated 06.09.2023. Case called several times, since morning but none has appeared on behalf of the applicants/third party objectors. It is already 03:45 P.M. Waited sufficiently. Further wait is not justified. As per facts and circumstances, it appears that the applicants/third party objectors are not desirous to proceed with the objections raised by them. As such, the third party objections raised by the applicants/ objectors namely Juhruddin, Altaf, Arshad and Saddam sons of Chand Khan are hereby dismissed being not pressed upon. Now to come up on 22.09.2023