IN THE 129 Juhruddin & O Abdul Rajjak & CORAM: Present:- Nidhi Gupta, J 16.11.2024 petitioners/th objections/res aside the ord objections of t 2. third party ob not pressed v the zimni orde 05.08.2023 an in the area as which none h that in view o THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HAR & Others Vs. jak & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr.Akshay Kumar Jindal, A for the petitioners. ***** ta, J. Challenge in the present 4 (Annexure P10) whereby s/third party objectors for givin /restoration of the objections, has order dated 13.09.2023 (Annexure of the petitioners, has been dismis Learned counsel for the y objections of the petitioners hav ed vide order dated 13.09.2023 (An orders (Annexure P7) reveals that 3 and 17.08.2023 in view of the pre a as well as imposition of curfew/S e had appeared before the Court w of this fact, even the applicatio HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2-2025(O&M) Date of order: 07.01.2025 …..Petitioner(s) …..Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate nt petition is to the order dated y application filed by the iving opportunity to press the has been dismissed; AND setting xure P11) vide which third party missed as not pressed. the petitioners submits that the have been wrongly dismissed as (Annexure P11), as, a perusal of hat the matter was adjourned on prevailing law and order situation w/Section 144 Cr.P.C. because of urt on 13.9.2023. It is submitted cation filed by the petitioners for (s) (s) ed he he ing rty he as of on ion of ed for SUNENA 2025.01.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document restoration of impugned ord 3. 4. No.1/plaintiff respondents N 4 from interfe suit land. The written statem actual owners respondent N dated 11.06.2 restrained fr No.1/plaintiff. dismissed by 24.12.2012 (A was filed by respondents N 06.05.2017 (A had filed thi respondent No 06.05.2017 (A failed to app n of the said objections, has been order dated 16.11.2024 (Annexure Heard. Brief facts of the case tiff had filed a suit for perma ts No.2 to 4/defendants for restrai erfering in the peaceful possession The respondents No.2 to 4 had cont atement stating that the defendan ners in possession of suit land. Su t No.1 was decreed in favour of re .06.2012 (Annexure P1) and res from interfering in the poss tiff. Even appeal against judgm by the learned Additional District 2 (Annexure P2). Subsequently, exe by the plaintiff/decree holder/re ts No.2 to 4 were proceeded agai 7 (Annexure P4). In the said execu third party objections on 06.0 t No.1/decree holder had duly filed 7 (Annexure P6). However, as pe appear before the learned Exec been wrongly dismissed vide the ure P10). case are that the respondent rmanent injunction against the straining the respondents No.2 to sion of respondent No.1 over the contested the suit and filed a joint dants/respondents No.2 to 4 are . Subsequently, the suit filed by f respondent No.1 vide judgment respondents No.2 to 4 were possession of the respondent dgment dated 11.06.2012 was trict Judge vide judgment dated , execution petition (Annexure P3) /respondent No.1 in which the against ex parte vide order dated xecution petition, the petitioners 06.05.2017 (Annexure P5). The filed reply to the objections dated per the record, the petitioners xecuting Court. Accordingly, on he nt he to he int are by nt re nt as ed 3) he ed s he ed ers on SUNENA 2025.01.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 06.09.2023, f Division), Fero 5. appearance, th pressed; and 6. judgment and possession q holder/respon 3, following order was passed by Ferozepur Jhirka:- “Today, case called several times the applicants/third party objec before this court. In the interest o 13.09.2023 for awaiting presen objectors and for further proceedi On 13.09.2023, as the pet e, the third-party objections filed b nd following order was passed: - “Today the case was fixed for party objectors in view of order d several times, since morning but of the applicants/third party obje Waited sufficiently. Further wait and circumstances, it appears th objectors are not desirous to proc by them. As such, the third pa applicants/ objectors namely Ju Saddam sons of Chand Khan are pressed upon. Now to come up proceedings.” On 22.09.2023, keeping and decree under execution was n qua suit land were issued spondent No.1; and the following or d by learned Civil Judge (Junior imes since morning but counsel for objectors has not come present rest of justice, now to come up on resence of applicant/third party ceedings.”. petitioners again failed to put in ed by them were dismissed as not for presence of applicants/third der dated 06.09.2023. Case called but none has appeared on behalf objectors. It is already 03:45 P.M. wait is not justified. As per facts rs that the applicants/third party proceed with the objections raised d party objections raised by the ly Juhruddin, Altaf, Arshad and n are hereby dismissed being not e up on 22.09.2023 for further ing in mind the fact that the as dated 11.6.2012, warrants of ed in favour of the decree g order was passed: - ior for ent on rty in ot ird led alf M. cts rty ed the nd ot her he of ee SUNENA 2025.01.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7. seeking settin their third-pa application of dated 16.11.2 15 effective been pressed. that the decre decree-holder order dated 16 “From the perusal of the case file execution petition pertains the ex decree dated 11.06.2012. It has b dispossessed the decree holder fr is made to issue the warrant of p the JDs have turned ex parte o objection raised by the applican also been dismissed being not pr 13.09.2023. As such, let warrant dispute be issued in favour of the Subsequently, the petiti etting aside of the above said ord party objections were dismisse of the petitioners has been dismi 11.2024, observing that the learned ve opportunities to the petitioners sed. It was further rightly observe ecree under execution is dated as lder is unable to enjoy the fruits d 16.11.2024, is as under: - “5. This Court has heard the rival c perused the file carefully and is of case to allow the present appli sufficient effective opportunities objections as a third party, precis the objections were not pressed that, the present execution petitio e file it transpires that the present he execution of the judgment and has been stated that the JDs have er from the suit land and request of possession of suit land. Further te on dated 06.05.2017 and the licants/third party objectors has ot pressed upon vide order dated rant of possession qua the land in the DH for 13.10.2023.” etitioners filed an application order dated 13.9.2023 whereby issed as not pressed. The said ismissed vide the impugned order rned court had given as many as ners, yet the objections had not erved by the learned court below as far back as 11.6.2012, yet the uits thereof. The relevant part of rival contentions of the parties and is of the view that this is not a fit application. The court had given ities to the applicant to press his recisely 15 opportunities, and still essed. Then, considering the fact etition (the judgment in which was ent nd ve est her the as ted in ion by aid er as ot ow he of nd fit en his till act as SUNENA 2025.01.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ju passed ion 11.06.2012) is pending years have elapsed but still the d the fruits of decree, allowing th justified. This will amount to gro Also, sufficient opportunities w applicant earlier but he did not now, when the same are dismisse to press the same by moving t appears to this court nothing bu execution petition. 6. Also, it is pertinent to mention Hon'ble Apex Court in Rahul S Gandhi (2021 6 SCC 418) wh executing Court must conclude t period of SIX MONTHS. Hence, it decree must be executed within s case, allowing the present ap mandate. When the applicant ha he did not use them effectively dismissed being not pressed, t moved. Hence, even the principles admission of present application a of his own wrong and that delay d 7. Also, the proper remedy for ord revision before proper authority u not the present application. Also not fits into any category of or Order XLIII CPC and thus it is no revisable one.” ding since 2016 and that almost 8 the decree holder has not availed g the present application is not gross injustice for decree holder. es were given to the present not press his objections and that issed being not pressed, he wants ing this present application. This g but a tool to delay the present tion here the law laid down by the hul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar wherein it was held that the ude the execution cases within a ce, it is the mandate of law that thin six months and in the present t application will frustrate that nt had 15 effective opportunities, tively and when the same were d, the present application was ciples of equity do not warrant the tion as no one can take advantage lay defeats equity. r order dated 13.09.2023 is to file rity under section 115 of CPC and Also, order dated 19.09.2023 do f orders mentioned in Rule 1 of is not an appealable order but a t 8 led ot er. ent at nts his ent the r the a at ent at ies, ere as the ge file nd do of t a SUNENA 2025.01.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8. controvert th ground is mad accordingly sta 9. 07.01.2025 Sunena Whether Whether Ld. Counsel for the petitio t the above said facts and finding made out to interfere in the impu ly stands dismissed. Pending application(s) if an her speaking/reasoned her reportable etitioners is unable to dispute or dings. In view of the above, no impugned order. Present petition any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Yes/No Yes/No or no ion SUNENA 2025.01.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document