Full Text
Translation output
A-55
% 12.7.2011
Present: Mr. Satpal Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Counsel for the respondent (appearance not given).
+ CM (M) No.770/2011
*
The impugned order is dated 06.06.2011 vide which the objections filed by the petitioner/objector in the execution proceedings has been dismissed.
This case has a checkered history. The petitioner is relying upon the compromise arrangement dated 25.12.1992 entered into between the petitioner (Inderjeet Singh Chopra) and the respondent (Narantar Dass) vide which petitioner had purchased the suit shop 15.06.1992 for a consideration of Rs.20,000/-.
Petitioner had filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1)
(a) of the DRC Act. The defendants chose not to contest the proceedings; an ex-parte decree had been passed in favour of the petitiOner on 06.03.1993; application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC had been moved by the petitioner on 07.05.1993 which had been dismissed on 06.11.1999. The appeal against the order dated
06.11.1999 was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal on
25.11.2003. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction; on 10.12.2003 that suit also stood dismissed.
2011:DHC:7800 ff
% 12.7.2011
Present: Mr. Satpal Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Counsel for the respondent (appearance not given).
+ CM (M) No.770/2011
*
The impugned order is dated 06.06.2011 vide which the objections filed by the petitioner/objector in the execution proceedings has been dismissed.
This case has a checkered history. The petitioner is relying upon the compromise arrangement dated 25.12.1992 entered into between the petitioner (Inderjeet Singh Chopra) and the respondent (Narantar Dass) vide which petitioner had purchased the suit shop 15.06.1992 for a consideration of Rs.20,000/-.
Petitioner had filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1)
(a) of the DRC Act. The defendants chose not to contest the proceedings; an ex-parte decree had been passed in favour of the petitiOner on 06.03.1993; application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC had been moved by the petitioner on 07.05.1993 which had been dismissed on 06.11.1999. The appeal against the order dated
06.11.1999 was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal on
25.11.2003. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction; on 10.12.2003 that suit also stood dismissed.
2011:DHC:7800 ff
Petitioner had thereafter filed his objections in the execution proceedings filed by the decree holder. Court had noted that the objector had adopted two contrary and conflicting stand; although in the earlier proceedings i.e. in the eviction petition in the written statement filed by him he had admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant; only dispute raised was with regard to the rent being
Rs.100/- p.m. and not Rs.200 p.m., in the present petition contention is that this is a Government land and same had been sold to the petitioner on 15.6.1992; contention being that a fraud has been committed by obtaining an ex-parte eviction decree from the court with regard to a Government property.
These contrary stands of the petitioner had rightly been noted in the impunged order; whereas in the eviction petition he had stated that this land had been sold to him on 15.06.1992, in the objections filed before the Executing Court his stand was that this is a Government land and the decree holder has no right title or interest in the said land. The reliance by the objector on the documents purported to have been executed in his favour on
15.06.1992 i.e. General Power of Attorney, Affidavit, Receipt and
Will and had never seen the light of the day in any Court and had never been proved.
Impugned order suffers from no illegal infirmity.
Petition is without any merit; it is dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 12, 2011 b
Rs.100/- p.m. and not Rs.200 p.m., in the present petition contention is that this is a Government land and same had been sold to the petitioner on 15.6.1992; contention being that a fraud has been committed by obtaining an ex-parte eviction decree from the court with regard to a Government property.
These contrary stands of the petitioner had rightly been noted in the impunged order; whereas in the eviction petition he had stated that this land had been sold to him on 15.06.1992, in the objections filed before the Executing Court his stand was that this is a Government land and the decree holder has no right title or interest in the said land. The reliance by the objector on the documents purported to have been executed in his favour on
15.06.1992 i.e. General Power of Attorney, Affidavit, Receipt and
Will and had never seen the light of the day in any Court and had never been proved.
Impugned order suffers from no illegal infirmity.
Petition is without any merit; it is dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 12, 2011 b
JUDGMENT