IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: December 11, 2025 Telu Ram and others ...Petitioners Versus Gian Singh through LRs and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI Present: Mr.Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.Vishwanjeet, Advocate for the respondent.

****

ARCHANA PURI, J.

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the orders dated

04.05.2019 as well as 18.05.2019 passed by learned trial Court, whereby, the objections filed by the petitioners in the execution petition, were dismissed.

In pursuance of the notice issued, the respondent made appearance through counsel. Counsel for the parties heard.

The facts germane, to be noticed, are as follows:-

That, initially, petitioner-Telu Ram and his sons (plaintiffs) had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents, to restrain them from interfering into peaceful possession of the petitioners-plaintiffs over the suit land measuring 2 Kanals 4 Marlas comprised in Khewat No.21/21, Khatoni No.25, Rect. No.8, Killa No.19/16(2-4), and also about petitioner-plaintiffs No.2 and 3, to be owners in possession of the land measuring 2 Kanals 8 Marlas, comprised in Khewat No.33/32, Khatoni No.45, Rect. No.8, Killa No.22/2 (2-8), both situated in village Lathron, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal.

The respondents-defendants made appearance and also filed counter claim and sought permanent injunction to restrain the petitioners- plaintiffs from encroaching upon the land of counter-claimant-defendant No.1, comprised in Rect. No.8, Killa No.19/6 (0-6) and 19/9 (0-2), situated in the same village.

On appraisal of the evidence, brought on record, learned trial Court, in view of the undertaking given by the respondents-defendants, about not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioners-plaintiffs, over the suit land, had decreed the suit for permanent injunction of the plaintiffs. Likewise, also while considering the revenue record, which reflected the possession of the defendants over the suit property, which was admitted by the plaintiffs, had also decreed the counter claim and restrained the rival parties from encroaching upon the land of each other.

Thereupon, the petition under Order 21 Rule 32 read with Section 151 CPC was filed by Gian Singh, through his legal representatives and Satish, who were the defendants-counter-claimants in the original suit before the trial Court. In the said petition, it was asserted that the plaintiffs were restrained from encroaching the land of the counter-claimants, comprised of Killa No.19/6 (0-6) and 19/9 (0-2). However, fortnight back, they had actually encroached upon some land of the aforesaid khasra numbers, as shown in the site plan, illegally and forcibly, thereby, making violation of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. In the light of the same, a prayer was made for issuance of directions to remove the encroachment, as shown in the red colour in the site plan from Khasra No.19/6 and 19/9, belonging to the decree holder and further also, in the eventuality of failing to do so, also that the JDs be sent to the civil prison, for the violation of the judgment and decree.

In pursuance of the notice, the present petitioners-plaintiffs (who were JDs in the execution) had made appearance and filed objections, thereby, questioning the maintainability of the petitioner and had also taken various preliminary objections. In fact, it was asserted that it was JDs/plaintiffs, who are owners in possession of the land measuring 6 Kanal 4 Marla and also 2 Kanal 8 Marla, as detailed in the civil suit. It was further asserted that on the eastern side of Killa No.19/16, which formed the basis of the suit, there is panchayati land and the defendants have collected material to raise construction on killa no.19/6 and 19/9 and they are trying to encroach upon the land pertaining to Khasra No.19/16 and 22/2, belonging to the plaintiffs-JDS.

These two killa numbers, belong