Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 04.12.2010 by which objection filed in the execution application by Satish Kumar, Sandeep Kumar, Sunil Kumar sons of Dharampal and Lata Rani widow of Dharampal on 08.05.2009 has been dismissed.
(2.) A few skeletal facts are required to be noticed in order to unfold the controversy between the parties. Late Dharampal and Late Raksha Devi, who were brother and sister, were tenants in the demised premises (shop) since 1978 on rent @ Rs. 120/ -per month. The landlord Mohan Lal filed Rent Petition No. 4 of 07.03.2001 against Dharampal and Lalita Kumari, Manju Bala, Anju Bala, Raman Bala, Ranju Bala, all daughters of Late Raksha Devi as her legal heirs, under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] on the grounds of arrears of rent and ceased to occupy the demised premises since March 2000. Since Dharampal could not be served through ordinary process, therefore, he was ordered to be served on 22.01.2002 by way of publication in "Daily Ashiana" published from Patiala, but despite that he did not appear and as such, he was proceeded against ex parte on 09.04.2002. However, the legal heirs of Raksha Devi appeared and contested the eviction petition. The ground of non -payment of rent became redundant as the rent was tendered, but eviction was ordered on 08.09.2006 on the ground of ceased to occupy the demised premises. The learned Rent Controller directed the tenants to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises, which was depicted in the site plan Ex.AW3/1, to the landlord within four months from the date of the order. Aggrieved against the order of ejectment, statutory appeal was filed by all the heirs of Raksha Devi and one of the heirs of Dharampal, namely, Raj Kumar. The learned Appellate Authority maintained the order of the learned Rent Controller vide its order dated 11.12.2008, which led to the filing of Civil Revision No. 1492 of 2009 which was filed by Raj Kumar S/o Dharampal along with the heirs of Raksha Devi, but the said revision petition was dismissed by this Court on 22.04.2009 and the Review Application No. 41 -CII of 2009 filed in CR No. 1492 of 2009 was also dismissed on 04.05.2009. On the other hand, the landlord was pursuing his execution of the order of eviction before the Civil Court/Rent Controller in which warrant of possession was issued on 25.04.2009, but the bailiff reported that the shop is lying locked with four locks on it. After the failure of Review Application No. 41 -CII of 2009 filed in CR No. 1492 of 2009, objections were filed in the execution application by the present Petitioners on 08.05.2009 in which it was alleged that as the landlord knew that Dharampal is missing since 05.06.1999 he should have impleaded his legal heirs as parties before the learned Rent Controller and that the description of the demised premises is not correctly given in the petition filed under Section 13 of the Act, as alleged in the site plan Ex.AW3/1. On 05.12.2009, Raj Kumar S/o Dharampal filed his objection separately in which he raised more or less the same issues which were raised by the other heirs of Dharampal in their objection dated 08.05.2009. Another objection was filed on 12.03.2010 by two daughters of Raksha Devi, namely, Ranju Bala and Manju Bala, again raising the same issues which have been raised earlier by the heirs of Dharampal. The landlord filed reply on 01.08.2009 to the objections dated 08.05.2009 filed by the present Petitioners. While these objections were pending, the Petitioners filed an application dated 08.05.2009 under Order 26 Rules 9 & 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short "CPC"] for the appointment of Local Commissioner to inspect the spot and submit a report regarding the actual and factual condition of the shops in question and an application dated 08.08.2009 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure in order to amend the objections dated 08.05.2009. Both the applications, under Order 26 Rules 9 & 10 and under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, filed by the Petitioners were dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khanna vide his order dated 22.10.2009. Thereafter, one application was filed by the heirs of both Dharampal and Raksha Devi including the Petitioners and Raj Kumar for transfer of the execution application from the Executing Court, Khanna to some Court at Ludhiana, which was dismissed on 04.12.2010, but the said order was challenged by Raj Kumar by way of Civil Revision No. 5760 of 2010. The said revision petition was allowed by this Court on consensual basis and the execution application was transferred from the Executing Court at Khanna to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, but with a direction to decide it within a time frame as the heirs of the tenants were trying to delay the execution. On 04.12.2010, the objection filed by Raj Kumar S/o Dharampal on 05.12.2009 was dismissed which was challenged by him by way of Civil Revision No. 8241 of 2010 but the same was dismissed in limine by this Court on 23.12.2010. While the Executing Court had dismissed the objection of Raj Kumar on 04.12.2010, on the same day the objection filed by the present Petitioners were also dismissed by the impugned order, against which the present revision petition was filed on 10.02.2011, perhaps after watching the fate of the revision petition filed by Raj Kumar against the order of dismissal of his objections on 23.12.2010, but in the meantime, the Executing Court after noticing the statement of bailiff recorded its satisfaction that the possession could not be given without the police help and thus ordered that the letter be written to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for police help. From the resume of the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that heirs of both Dharampal and Raksha Devi have been contesting the litigation tooth and nail. The rent petition was allowed against which appeal was filed by Raj Kumar S/o Dharampal who had further filed revision petition in this Court and after its dismissal, filed review application as well. Similarly, he also filed objection in the execution application. He was a party in the application seeking transfer of the execution application from the Court at Khanna to Ludhiana and had also filed a revision against the order by which his objections were dismissed by the learned Executing Court. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that the Court of Shri B.K. Sharma, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khanna had lodged one FIR No. 265 of 2010 in the Police Station Khanna on 01.10.2010 against Raj Kumar, S/o Dharampal, resident of House No. 572/15, Bank Colony, Khanna, under Sections 193/420/468/471/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that Satish Kumar S/o Dharampal had also made a complaint to the SHO, Police Station Khanna on 14.01.2011 in which he has given his address as House No. 572/15, Bank Colony Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana.
(3.) AGGRIEVED against the impugned order dated 04.12.2010, the Petitioners have filed the present revision petition alongwith an application bearing CM No. 4441 -CII of 2011 by which they had sought exemption from filing certified copies of Annexures P -2, P -6 and P -9 and also sought permission to place on record copies of Annexures P -1, P -3, P -4, P -5, P -7 and P -8. The said application was allowed on 16.02.2011. Since the Petitioners had projected before this Court by way of photographs that Sohan Lal bailiff was taking bribe from the landlord for the purpose of executing the warrant of possession, notice of motion was issued by this Court and the dispossession of the Petitioners was stayed. In pursuance of notice of motion, Respondent had put in appearance and the matter was kept for further proceedings and in the meantime, the Respondent/landlord filed an application bearing CM No. 6381 -CII of 2011 in order to seek exemption from filing of certified/true typed/photocopies/true translation of Annexures R -1 to R -16 and CM No. 6382 -CII of 2011 for placing them on record. All the documents were found to be of the judicial record and as such, both the applications are hereby allowed and the documents are taken on record. The Petitioners also filed CM No. 6234 -CII of 2011 in order to produce photographs and a complaint against bailiffs Ram Rattan and Sohan Lal which has been allegedly made to the District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. The application is allowed and the documents are taken on record. The Petitioners also filed CM No. 7080 -CII of 2011 in order to place on record some more documents which are the zimni orders passed by the Courts. The application is allowed and the documents are taken on record.;