Vikram Singh vs Sadhu Singh

IN THE COURT OF MS. AMANDEEP KAUR, PCS

CIVIL JUDGE( JR. DIVISION), DASUYA

Civil Exe No. : 72/2015

Date of Institution : 31.10.2015
Date of Decision : 20.02.2019
CIS No. : EXE-110-2015
CNR No : PBHOA00009242015

Vikaram Singh S/o Sh. Sadhu Singh R/o Village Rajpalwan, Tehsil

Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur.

……….. Applicant/DH

Vs.

Sadhu Singh S/o Mala Singh R/o Village Rajpalwan, Tehsil Dasuya,

District Hoshiarpur.

………...Respondent/JD

Application u/o 21 Rule 32 read with Section 151 C.P.C

Present: Sh. A.K Kalia adv. Counsel for the applicant

Sh. Dalbir Singh Adv. Counsel for the respondent

*******************

Order:-

1. This order of mine shall dispose of application under Order

21 Rule 32 CPC read with Section 151 CPC filed by applicant/DH.

2. The applicant has filed present application on the ground that

applicant/ DH filed a civil suit no. 345/11-09-2008/24.05.2014 titled as

“Vikram Singh vs Sadhu Singh” for permanent injunction restraining the

defendant from demolishing the house bounded as under:-

North: Street

Amandeep Kaur, PCS

Civil Judge(Jr. Div.) Dasuya,20.02.2019
UID No. PB0339
 Vikram Singh vs Sadhu Singh

South: House of Sh. Mohinder Singh

2.

East : House of Sh. Harbhajan Singh

West : Street

situated at Village Rajpalwan, Tehsil Dasuya, District

Hoshiarpur forcibly and illegally which has been decreed in favour of the

applicant on 24.05.2014 and against the respondent/JD. Applicant is

owner in possession of the house in dispute situated in Khasra No.

1192/1049 situated at Village Rajpalwan, Tehsil Dasuya, District

Hoshiarpur and it has been held by the predecessor of the Hon’ble Court

in the judgment dated 24.05.2014. Respondent/JD has full knowledge

about the judgment and decree dated 24.05.2014. A fortnight ago

respondent/JD illegally and forcibly with the help of his son attempted to

thrown the house hold articles lying in the property in dispute of

applicant/DH by entering in the house and removed the bricks of the wall

illegally and forcibly. Applicant requested the respondent to refrain

himself from such illegal acts whereupon the respondent/JD started

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

dispute for which he has no right to do so. Hence proceedings under

Order 21 Rule 32 CPC are required initiated against him. Hence the

present application.

3. Upon notice respondent appeared and filed written statement

and took preliminary objections that the application is not maintainable.

Amandeep Kaur, PCS
Civil Judge(Jr. Div.) Dasuya,20.02.2019
UID No. PB0339
 Vikram Singh vs Sadhu Singh

On merits it is submitted that the applicant is not in possession of the

house in dispute situated in khasra no. 1192/1049. The applicant is a joint

3.

owner of land bearing khasra no. 1192/1049. Previously the respondent

Sadhu Singh father of the applicant is owner in possession of the house

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

transferred 18 K-3M property alongwith disputed house to his son

Surinder Singh, vide transferred deed dated 06.06.2008. The respondent is

in possession of the disputed house alongwith his son Surinder Singh. It is

further submitted that applicant is residing in newly constructed house and

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.

4. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were

framed:

1. Whether the respondent/JD has violated and flouted the judgment

an decree dated 24.05.2014?ODH

2. Relief.

5. To prove the issue the applicant examined himself as AW 1

by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A, AW 2 Jagtar Singh by way of affidavit Ex.

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.

6. In order to rebut the case of the applicant respondent himself

4.

examined as RW1 by way of affidavit Ex. RW1/A, and thereafter Adv.

Counsel for the respondent tendered into evidence certified copy of

statement of Maninder Kaur Clerk PSPCL Ex. R1/A order dated

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

1. Whether the respondent/JD has violated and flouted the judgment

an decree dated 24.05.2014?ODH

Onus to prove issue no. 1 was upon the DH.

8. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has argued that the respondent

in spite of the knowledge of the judgment and decree dated 24.05.2014

has illegally and forcibly with the help of his son attempted to thrown the

household articles lying in the property in dispute by entering in the house

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

judgment and decree passed in the civil suit no.

345/11.09.2008/24.05.2014 titled as “Vikarm Singh vs Sadhu Singh in a

suit for permanent injunction filed by applicant against the respondent

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

21 Rule 32 CPC may kindly be initiated against him.

9. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that

the respondent never disobeyed the judgment and decree dated

24.05.2014. He further argued that the respondent never interfered in the

possession of the applicant illegally. He further argued that applicant

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.

10. In order to prove its case applicant examined himself as AW 1

by way of affidavit Ex. AW1/A in which he deposed on the lines of his

application which need not be repeated for the sake of brevity.

AW 2 Jagtar Singh deposed that he is Sarpanch of the village

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

spot and he alongwith the police inspected the place of occurrence.

11. In order to rebut the case of the applicant respondent

examined himself as RW 1 by way of affidavit Ex. RW1/A in which he

deposed on the lines of his written statement which need not be repeated

6.

for the sake of brevity.

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.

13. Since various provisions of Rule 32 of Order 21 CPC fall for

consideration, therefore it will be appropriate to reproduce the same:

Order 21 Rule 32 Decree for specific performance for

restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction:-

1. Where the party against whom a decree for the specific

performance of a contract or for restitution of conjugal rights, or for

an injunction has been passed has had an opportunity or obeying the

decree and has willfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced

in the case of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the

attachment of his property or in the case of a decree for the specific

performance of a contract, or for an injunction by his detention in the

Amandeep Kaur, PCS
Civil Judge(Jr. Div.) Dasuya,20.02.2019
UID No. PB0339
 Vikram Singh vs Sadhu Singh

civil prison, or by the attachment of his property or by both.

2. Where the party against whom a decree for specific performance or

for an injunction has been passed is a corporation the decree may be

enforced by the attachment of the property of the corporation or with

the leave of the Court, by the detention in the civil prison the

directors of other principal officers hereof or by both attachment and

7.

detention.

3. Where any attachment under Sub-Rule 1 ) or sub rule 2) has

remained in force for six months, if the judgment-debtor has not

obeyed the decree and the decree bolder has applied to have the

attached property sold, such property may be sold and out of the

proceeds the Court may award to the decree holder such

compensation as it thinks fit and shall pay the balance(if any) to the

judgment debtor on his application.

4. Where the judgment debtor has obeyed the decree and paid all

costs of executing the same which he is bound to pay or where at the

end of six months from the date of the attachment, no application to

have the property sold has been made or it made has been refused, the

attachment shall cease.

5. Where a decree for the specific performance of a contract or for an

injunction has not been obeyed, the Court may in lieu of or in

addition to all or any of the process aforesaid, direct that the Act

required to be done may be done so far as practicable by the decree-

Amandeep Kaur, PCS
Civil Judge(Jr. Div.) Dasuya,20.02.2019
UID No. PB0339
 Vikram Singh vs Sadhu Singh

holder or some other person appointed by the Court, at the cost of

judgment debtor and upon the act being done the expenses incurred

may be ascertained in such manner as the Court may direct and may

be recovered as if they were included in the Decree.”

14. A reading of sub-rule 1. Shows that to enforce a decree for

injunction an opportunity is to be granted to the judgment debtor to

obey the decree and in case he willfully fails to do so, the decree can

8.

be enforced by detention in Civil prison or by attachment of the

property of the judgment debtor or by both. Under Sub-rule 3. if

attachment made under Sub-rule 1. remains in force for a period of

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

where at the end of six months from the date of attachment no

application to have the property sold is made, or if made, has been

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

may be done so far as practicable by the decree-holder or some other

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

they were included in the decree. Therefore, it is clear that if time is

Amandeep Kaur, PCS
Civil Judge(Jr. Div.) Dasuya,20.02.2019
UID No. PB0339
 Vikram Singh vs Sadhu Singh

allowed to the judgment debtor to obey the decree of injunction and if

he willfully continues to defy, he can be detained in civil prison of his

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

to have the compliance of the decree in lieu of other processes or in

addition thereto by directing that the act required to be done by the

9.

judgment debtor be done at his expense either by the decree holder or

some other person appointed by the Court.

15. Admittedly plaintiff filed civil suit no. 345 titled as “ Vikram

Singh vs Sadhu Singh”for permanent injunction restraining the defendants

from demolishing the house in dispute which was decreed vide judgment

and decree dated 24.05.2014. The applicant further claim that the

applicant is owner in possession of the house in dispute however perusal

of judgment and decree dated 24.05.2014, certified copy of which has

been produced on record as Ex A1 shows that in paragraph no. 7 of the

judgment and decree dated 24.05.2014 Vikram Singh is held to be a co-

sharer to the extent of 1/25 share in the suit property.

16. Admittedly the property in dispute is joint property of all 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

There is, as a matter of fact, no photographs produced on record by the

applicant regarding demolishing of the wall as alleged. Moreover, in the

judgment and decree dated 24.05.2014 the applicant was held entitled to

1/25 share of the suit property. It is nowhere mentioned in the judgment

and decree dated 24.05.2014 that the plaintiff is in exclusive possession

of the suit property. Further the applicant himself has admitted in his cross

examination that he has constructed a new house and he resides in the

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.

property by the respondent, however it has not come on record anywhere

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

lying in the house in dispute. The respondent alleges that he is residing in

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

respondent is not in possession of the house in dispute. The defendant

was restrained from demolishing the house in dispute. The applicant has

not been able to prove by leading cogent evidence that the respondent

demolished the wall of the house in dispute. Accordingly, this issue is

decided in favour of the respondent and against the applicant.

RELIEF.

17. In view of my discussion on abovesaid issues application of

Amandeep Kaur, PCS
Civil Judge(Jr. Div.) Dasuya,20.02.2019
UID No. PB0339
 Vikram Singh vs Sadhu Singh

the applicant stands dismissed. Accordingly, disposed of. File be

consigned to Record Room.

Dated:20.02.2019 Amandeep Kaur,PCS

Diksha Rani (Steno-III) Civil Judge(Jr. Division)/Dasuya
UID No.PB-0339

Amandeep Kaur, PCS

Civil Judge(Jr. Div.) Dasuya,20.02.2019
UID No. PB0339