Civil Revision No. 107 of 2012. Case: Surjit Singh Vs Harmohinder Singh and Ors.. Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case NumberCivil Revision No. 107 of 2012
Party NameSurjit Singh Vs Harmohinder Singh and Ors.
CounselFor Appellant: Neeraj Gupta, Advocate and For Respondents: Shyam Singh Chauhan, Vice Counsel
JudgesSureshwar Thakur, J.
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order VI Rule 17; Sections 105, 115
Judgement DateApril 12, 2017
CourtHimachal Pradesh High Court

Judgment:

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

  1. The instant petition stands directed against the impugned order, recorded by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Una, District Una, H.P. upon the objections constituted there before by the JD, whereupon he resisted the execution of the conclusively recorded decree of mandatory injunction whereupon the projections raised by the JD upon khasra No. 4464/2903/1, projections whereof stands denoted by letters shown in red and yellow circles in the site plan stood hence ordered to be demolished, whereupon he hence dismissed the apposite objections reared there before. Initially, the judgment debtor resisted the execution, by the learned executing Court, of the apposite decree put to execution there before by his rearing objections there before, objections, whereof, however thereat did not hold there within any unfoldment qua the judgment debtor suo motu voluntarily begetting compliance with the decree of mandatory injunction aforesaid, comprised in his removing the un-authorisedly raised projection/construction upon khasra No. 4464/2903/1. However, the aforesaid compliance made by the JD with the decree put to execution before the learned executing Court, stood subsequently espoused by him, espousal whereof stood embedded in an application constituted there before under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, whereon also the learned executing Court pronounced an order dismissing it. The order rendered by the learned Executing Court upon the application constituted there before by the JD under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, stood pronounced thereon, on 1.5.2012, whereas the learned Executing Court proceeded to subsequently on 18.8.2012 dismiss the objections constituted therebefore by the judgment debtor.

  2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein, has hereat constituted an onslaught qua the legality of the orders pronounced by the learned Executing Court upon the application constituted there before by the judgment debtor under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, however, he in prompt sequel to the orders standing pronounced thereupon, by the learned Executing Court, visibly omitted to make an apposite motion here before for hence seeking their reversal. Obviously, he waited for the pronouncement of a verdict by the learned Executing Court, upon his earlier therewith instituted objections qua the executability of the execution petition, objections whereof did not hold there within any averment qua the judgment debtor suo moto meeting compliance with the mandate of the conclusively recorded concurrent decree(s) of mandatory injunction, pronounced upon him, by the civil courts concerned, whereupon the failure or omission of the judgment debtor, to promptly, on rendition of an apposite verdict upon his application constituted under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC before the learned Executing Court, hence may estop him to assail it here before nor he now at stand vested with any leverage, to while assailing the orders recorded subsequent thereto upon his objections by the learned Executing Court, to also assail the verdict recorded, by it, upon his application constituted there before under the...

To continue reading

Request your trial