Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Vikaram Singh S/o Sh. Sadhu Singh R/o Village Rajpalwan, Tehsil
……….. Applicant/DH
Vs.
Sadhu Singh S/o Mala Singh R/o Village Rajpalwan, Tehsil Dasuya,
District Hoshiarpur.
………...Respondent/JD
*******************
Order:-
North: Street
2.
West : Street
Hoshiarpur forcibly and illegally which has been decreed in favour of the
Hoshiarpur and it has been held by the predecessor of the Hon’ble Court
respondent/JD illegally and forcibly with the help of his son attempted to
applicant/DH by entering in the house and removed the bricks of the wall
abusing the DH. JD has violated and flouted the judgment and decree by
entering into the peaceful possession of the applicant over the house in
Order 21 Rule 32 CPC are required initiated against him. Hence the
present application.
3.
in dispute bearing khasra no. 1192/1049 who has constructed the house in
dispute for the last more than 40 years. The respondent Sadhu Singh
taken all house hold articles with him when he shifted to newly
constructed house which is for from the disputed house. The respondent
never demolished the wall illegally and forcibly. Rest of the other
averments have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the application
is made.
framed:
2. Relief.
AW2/A. Thereafter Counsel for the applicant tendered into evidence copy
Amandeep Kaur, PCS
Civil Judge(Jr. Div.) Dasuya,20.02.2019
UID No. PB0339
Vikram Singh vs Sadhu Singh
of judgment dated 24.05.2014 Ex. A1 and decree sheet Ex. A2, Certified
Copy of site plan Ex. A3 and closed evidence on behalf of the applicant.
4.
27.10.2014 Ex. R1/B, Decree sheet Ex. R1/C, Order dated 06.12.2016 Ex.
R1/D, Decree sheet Ex. R1/E Fard jamabandi year 2015-16 Ex. R1/F(6
pages), Electricity bill Ex. R1/9 and closed evidence on behalf of the
respondent.
7. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant and respondent
No. 1 carefully and perused the record on file. My issue wise findings are
as follows:-
ISSUE NO. 1
8. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has argued that the respondent
has illegally and forcibly with the help of his son attempted to thrown the
and removing the bricks of the wall and has demolished the wall illegally
and forcibly. He further argued that the respondent is bound to obey the
Amandeep Kaur, PCS
Civil Judge(Jr. Div.) Dasuya,20.02.2019
UID No. PB0339
Vikram Singh vs Sadhu Singh
which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 24.05.2014 passed by
5.
the Court of Sh. Rajinder Singh Nagpal Ld. CJJD, Dasuya. He further
prayed that his application may be allowed and proceedings under Order
9. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that
himself vacated the house and started living in newly constructed house.
He further argued that there is no proof that the respondent demolished the
wall of the house in question. He prayed that the application may kindly
be dismissed.
and knows the parties to the application personally. He has seen the house
in dispute. In the month of October 2015 the parties to the application had
a fight and respondent Sadhu Singh along with his son Surinder Singh
demolished the wall of the house and thrown the articles of applicant
Amandeep Kaur, PCS
Civil Judge(Jr. Div.) Dasuya,20.02.2019
UID No. PB0339
Vikram Singh vs Sadhu Singh
Vikram Singh out of the house. He further deposed that police came at the
deposed on the lines of his written statement which need not be repeated
6.
12. The applicant has filed the present application under order 21
rule 32 CPC on the ground that the respondent disobeyed judgment and
decree dated 24.05.2014. It is the case of the applicant that the respondent
thrown out his articles lying in the house and demolished the wall of the
house of the applicant and as such has violated the judgment and decree
dated 24.05.2014.
decree and has willfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced
the leave of the Court, by the detention in the civil prison the
7.
detention.
obeyed the decree and the decree bolder has applied to have the
attached property sold, such property may be sold and out of the
compensation as it thinks fit and shall pay the balance(if any) to the
4. Where the judgment debtor has obeyed the decree and paid all
have the property sold has been made or it made has been refused, the
addition to all or any of the process aforesaid, direct that the Act
judgment debtor and upon the act being done the expenses incurred
may be ascertained in such manner as the Court may direct and may
obey the decree and in case he willfully fails to do so, the decree can
8.
six months and if the judgment debtor has not obeyed the decree and
if the decree holder has applied to have the attached property sold,
the same can be sold. Under Sub Rule 4) where the judgment debtor
has obeyed the decree and has paid all costs of executing the same or
refused, the attachment ceases. Under Sub- Rule 5) where a decree for
injunction has not been obeyed the Court may in lieu of or in addition
to all the aforesaid processes, direct that the act required to be done
person appointed by the Court at the cost of the judgment debtor and
upon the act being done, the expenses incurred may be recovered as if
property can be attached or both steps can be taken against him and
if in spite of that he does not obey the decree for a period of six
months, then the attached property can be put to sale if so applied for
by the decree holder. It is further provided that the Court has power
9.
15. Admittedly plaintiff filed civil suit no. 345 titled as “ Vikram
from demolishing the house in dispute which was decreed vide judgment
and decree dated 24.05.2014. The applicant further claim that the
co-sharer and has not been partitioned yet. Applicant has examined AW 2
Jagtar Singh in his favour, however this witness has nowhere stated that
the respondent demolished the wall of the house in dispute in his presence.
Amandeep Kaur, PCS
Civil Judge(Jr. Div.) Dasuya,20.02.2019
UID No. PB0339
Vikram Singh vs Sadhu Singh
judgment and decree dated 24.05.2014 the applicant was held entitled to
of the suit property. Further the applicant himself has admitted in his cross
new house. He voluntarily stated that his articles are lying in the old
house. Allegedly the articles of the applicant were thrown out of the suit
10.
in the evidence of the applicant that once the articles of the applicant were
thrown out of the house by the respondent, then how come his articles are
the house in dispute alongwith his son namely Surinder Singh. Perusal of
judgment and decree dated 24.05.2014 shows that it has not been held
anywhere by the Court of Sh. Rajinder Singh Nagpal that Sadhu Singh
was restrained from demolishing the house in dispute. The applicant has
not been able to prove by leading cogent evidence that the respondent
RELIEF.