CR-6676-2009 (O&M) [228] Amritsar Diocese Trust Association (Regd.), Archdeacon House, Court Amritsar Diocese Trust Association through Rockes Bernabas Sandhu Coram : Present: PANKAJ JAIN [1] Court whereby application filed under Order Judgment Debtor/Objector has been dismissed. [2] properties owned by registered under [3] its Secretary, seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant from occupying any [4] defendant, observing as under: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6676- Date of Decision : Amritsar Diocese Trust Association (Regd.), Archdeacon House, Court Road, Amritsar versus Amritsar Diocese Trust Association through Rockes Bernabas Sandhu and another HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Challenge is to Order dated 10.10.2009 passed by the Court whereby application filed under Order Judgment Debtor/Objector has been dismissed. Parties are in the thick of lis properties owned by ‘ADTA’ - Amritsar registered under Societies Registration Act On 04.04.1972, Civil Suit No.365 was instituted by ADTA and s Secretary, seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant from occupying any property belonging to the Society. The suit was decreed on the statement made by counsel for the defendant, observing as under:- “ Therefore, in view of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 01.04.2025 Amritsar Diocese Trust Association (Regd.), Road, Amritsar …Petitioner Amritsar Diocese Trust Association through another ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN Challenge is to Order dated 10.10.2009 passed by the Executing Court whereby application filed under Order XIV Rule 1 & 5 CPC by the Judgment Debtor/Objector has been dismissed. lis with respect to control over the Amritsar Diocese Trust Association Society Act. No.365 was instituted by ADTA and s Secretary, seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant property belonging to the Society. The suit was decreed on the statement made by counsel for the Therefore, in view of the authority cited above and the 1 Executing Rule 1 & 5 CPC by the control over the Diocese Trust Association Society No.365 was instituted by ADTA and s Secretary, seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants The suit was decreed on the statement made by counsel for the authority cited above and the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.08 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6676-2009 (O&M) [5] decree-holder, alleging deliberate disobedience of the decree by the Judgment Debtors. On 21.04.1993, objections were filed under Section 47 CPC in the said execution on 23.09.2021. During the pendency of the said objections issues, was filed which stands rejected by way of impugned order, holding that the execution filed by Judgment Debtor 08 years after ha this stage, this execution cannot [6] the pendency of the earlier suit, the JDs filed another suit bearing Civil Suit No.192 dated 01.0 were made with respect to vesting of management society, which have not been Thus, objector had a right to prove before the Executing Co execution application holder as the management vests somewhere else. In order to prove the same, framing of [7] petitioner undertakes to undertaking of the defendants that would met interfere into the affairs and management of the plaintiff regarding the properties in dispute, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed to the extent that these defendants shall not interfere in the management of the properties is question except in due process of law. In the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs.” Application under Order XXI holder, alleging deliberate disobedience of the decree by the Judgment Debtors. On 21.04.1993, objections were filed under Section 47 CPC in the said execution on 23.09.2021. During the pendency of the said objections, present application under Order was filed which stands rejected by way of impugned order, holding that the execution is an old one pending since 1993. Instant application was filed by Judgment Debtor 08 years after ha this stage, this execution cannot be put to evidence. Learned counsel for the objector the pendency of the earlier suit, the JDs filed another suit bearing Civil Suit No.192 dated 01.06.1976, which was dismissed and certain observations were made with respect to vesting of management society, which have not been stayed by H Thus, objector had a right to prove before the Executing Co execution application cannot be filed by the management of the decree holder as the management vests somewhere else. In order to prove the same, of issues and leading of evidence is necessary. Mr. Bhatia, counsel for the petition petitioner undertakes to conclude the entire evidence in case one opportunity undertaking of the defendants that would met interfere into the affairs and management of the plaintiff regarding the properties in dispute, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed to the extent that ot interfere in the management of the properties is question except in due process of law. In the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own XXI Rule 32 CPC was filed by the holder, alleging deliberate disobedience of the decree by the Judgment Debtors. On 21.04.1993, objections were filed under Section 47 CPC in the said execution on 23.09.2021. During the pendency of the said , present application under Order XIV Rule 1 & 5 CPC, claiming was filed which stands rejected by way of impugned order, holding an old one pending since 1993. Instant application was filed by Judgment Debtor 08 years after having filed objections and thus, at put to evidence. Learned counsel for the objector-petitioner submits that during the pendency of the earlier suit, the JDs filed another suit bearing Civil Suit 6, which was dismissed and certain observations were made with respect to vesting of management of the decree-holder Higher Court as per his knowledge. Thus, objector had a right to prove before the Executing Court that the not be filed by the management of the decree holder as the management vests somewhere else. In order to prove the same, leading of evidence is necessary. Mr. Bhatia, counsel for the petitioner further submits that the the entire evidence in case one opportunity 2 undertaking of the defendants that would met interfere into the affairs and management of the plaintiff regarding the properties in dispute, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed to the extent that ot interfere in the management of the properties is question except in due process of law. In the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own Rule 32 CPC was filed by the holder, alleging deliberate disobedience of the decree by the Judgment Debtors. On 21.04.1993, objections were filed under Section 47 CPC in the said execution on 23.09.2021. During the pendency of the said Rule 1 & 5 CPC, claiming was filed which stands rejected by way of impugned order, holding an old one pending since 1993. Instant application was ving filed objections and thus, at petitioner submits that during the pendency of the earlier suit, the JDs filed another suit bearing Civil Suit 6, which was dismissed and certain observations holder igher Court as per his knowledge. urt that the not be filed by the management of the decree- holder as the management vests somewhere else. In order to prove the same, er further submits that the the entire evidence in case one opportunity RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.08 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6676-2009 (O&M) is granted. [8] observations made in the judgment passed in Civil Suit No.192 dated 01.06.1976 on Issue No.21 to submit that the effect of judgment and execution was considered in the civil suit. It was the Trial Court, that in case of any violation of the 1977 decree, the plaintiffs was has been filed. under Order [9] through the records of the case. [10] contending that the present application was filed, claiming issues after 08 years of pendency of the objections filed under Section 47 of the CPC. However, at the same time, it is a matter of record that during all this period, parties remain engaged management of the properties owned by ADTA. There is a serious dispute with respect to management of the said Tru upon rival findings in their favour. [11] the parties that the Executing Court one opportunity to each of them to can be finally laid to rest. [12] Impugned order is ordered to be is granted. Per contra, Mr. Jain, counsel for respondent No.1 observations made in the judgment passed in Civil Suit No.192 dated .1976 on Issue No.21 to submit that the effect of judgment and execution was considered in the civil suit. It was the Trial Court, that in case of any violation of the 1977 decree, the plaintiffs was to file an execution application, that the present application has been filed. He further submits that delay of 08 years in filing application under Order XIV, claiming issues is enough to non suit the petitioner. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully through the records of the case. Though, Mr. Jain, counsel for respondent No.1 is right in contending that the present application was filed, claiming issues after 08 years of pendency of the objections filed under Section 47 of the CPC. r, at the same time, it is a matter of record that during all this period, parties remain engaged in a fierce lis management of the properties owned by ADTA. There is a serious dispute with respect to management of the said Tru upon rival findings in their favour. In view of the above, this Court finds that it was interest of both the parties that the Executing Court should one opportunity to each of them to lead the entire evidence, so that the issue can be finally laid to rest. In view of the above, the present revision petition is Impugned order is ordered to be set aside. It is ordered as under: (i) Impugned order dated 10.10.2009 is he counsel for respondent No.1 refers to observations made in the judgment passed in Civil Suit No.192 dated .1976 on Issue No.21 to submit that the effect of judgment and execution was considered in the civil suit. It was the Trial Court, which held that in case of any violation of the 1977 decree, the rightful course for the application, that the present application He further submits that delay of 08 years in filing application , claiming issues is enough to non suit the petitioner. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone Though, Mr. Jain, counsel for respondent No.1 is right in contending that the present application was filed, claiming issues after 08 years of pendency of the objections filed under Section 47 of the CPC. r, at the same time, it is a matter of record that during all this period, lis with respect to control and management of the properties owned by ADTA. There is a serious dispute with respect to management of the said Trust and both the parties are relying In view of the above, this Court finds that it was interest of both should have framed issues and granted lead the entire evidence, so that the issue In view of the above, the present revision petition is allowed. . It is ordered as under:- Impugned order dated 10.10.2009 is hereby set aside. 3 refers to observations made in the judgment passed in Civil Suit No.192 dated .1976 on Issue No.21 to submit that the effect of judgment and held for the application, that the present application He further submits that delay of 08 years in filing application gone Though, Mr. Jain, counsel for respondent No.1 is right in contending that the present application was filed, claiming issues after 08 years of pendency of the objections filed under Section 47 of the CPC. r, at the same time, it is a matter of record that during all this period, with respect to control and management of the properties owned by ADTA. There is a serious dispute st and both the parties are relying In view of the above, this Court finds that it was interest of both have framed issues and granted lead the entire evidence, so that the issue allowed. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.08 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6676-2009 (O&M) [13] be decided 30.08.2025. [14] disposed off 01.04.2025 ‘R. Sharma' (ii) The parties shall appear before the Executing Court on 21.04.2025. The Executing Court shall grant two weeks’ time to both the parties and on the date adjourned shall frame issues as per the objections filed by the petitioner under Section 47 and the reply thereto by decree (iii) The Executing Court shall grant one opportunity each to both the parties to lead their entire evidence. Thereafter the objections as well as execution application shall be decided in accordance with law within a 30.08.2025. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off. 01.04.2025 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable The parties shall appear before the Executing Court on 21.04.2025. The Executing Court shall grant two weeks’ time to both the parties and on the date adjourned shall frame issues as per the objections filed by the petitioner Section 47 and the reply thereto by decree-holder. The Executing Court shall grant one opportunity each to both the parties to lead their entire evidence. objections as well as execution application shall within a further period not beyond All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 4 The parties shall appear before the Executing Court on 21.04.2025. The Executing Court shall grant two weeks’ time to both the parties and on the date adjourned shall frame issues as per the objections filed by the petitioner holder. The Executing Court shall grant one opportunity each to objections as well as execution application shall period not beyond All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.08 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document