VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition against an order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner herein.
(2.) THE respondent-Decree Holder had filed an execution application under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) claiming that vide judgment and decree dated 6.10.1998 the Decree Holder was held to be in exclusive possession of the portion measuring 19'-6" x 5' i.e. Koocha Khaas over which the defendant has no right to encroach. The claim of the Decree Holder was that the objector has started interfering in the exclusive possession of the Decree Holder over the portion in dispute to which he had no right. To the application moved by the respondent-Decree Holder, objections were filed by the petitioner on the ground that he has not obstructed or raised construction nor he is blocking or obstructing the Koocha Khaas situated on the northern side of the house of the Decree Holder which is 18'-6" in length and 5' in width as per the site plan. The objector further denied that he had disobeyed the terms of the decree. It was further the case of the petitioner that he did not intend to raise any construction or block Koocha Khaas. The claim of the petitioner was that the property in question is meant for ingress and outgress of the house of the parties and as no overt act has been done by the Judgement Debtor-respondent No. 2, the execution application moved by the Decree Holder was without any merit and was liable to be dismissed. Learned Executing Court returned the following findings : "4. In view of the above mentioned categorical observations of the ld. Appellate Court, it can be stated that the defendant/JD has no right to interfere in the passage of Koocha Khaas i.e. suit property. Though in para No. 5 of the objections filed by the respondent No. 2/JD, it is mentioned that the suit property i.e. Koocha Khaas is meant exclusively for ingress and outgress of the houses of the applicant/Decree Holder and respondent/JD but it is not so. Accordingly, the JD/respondent has no right to raise construction or create any obstruction in the usage of the passage by the applicant/DH." In view of the findings recorded above, the objections filed by the petitioner were dismissed and the case was adjourned for filing reply to the application moved by the Decree Holder seeking physical possession of the suit land.
(3.) MR . Kanwaljit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the finding of the lower Court by referring to the decree passed by the Court which reads as under : "A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction or blocking and obstructing the Koocha Khaas existing along the northern side of the house of the plaintiff which is 19'-6" in length and five feet in width as per site plan Ex. P3 is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant-respondent." The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the decree was only qua raising of any construction or blocking and obstructing the Koocha Khaas existing on the northern side of the house of the plaintiff which is 19'-6" x 5' as per site plan Ex. P-3 and therefore, it was wrong on the part of the Executing Court to reject the objections filed by the petitioner and holding that the Decree Holder was entitled to the exclusive possession of Koocha Khaas.;