VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) PRESENT execution second appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Sangrur vide which appeal filed by the decree-holder against acceptance of objections by the executing court was accepted.
(2.) THE decree-holder in pursuance to the order of ejectment having been passed against respondent No. 2, moved an application for execution of the order of eviction. However, due to the obstruction raised by Kuldeep Singh husband of the objector appellant, the police help was sought. The warrant of possession could not be executed even thereafter. The objectors-appellants moved an application raising objection that Satbir Kaur was in possession of the property in her own right and, therefore, order of eviction cannot be executed against her. The learned executing Court framed the following issues, on the pleadings raised by the parties :- 1. Whether objector Satbir Kaur is in possession of shop in question and is running business in said shop in name and style of M/s. Bajwa Trading Company, Sangrur ? OP-objector Satbir Kaur. 2. Whether objector Kuldeep Singh took shop in dispute on rent from Decree- holder through its manager on 25.2.2004 ? OP-objector Kuldeep Singh. 3. Whether objections are false and frivolous and same are liable to be dismissed ? OP-DH 4. Whether objectors have got no concern with shop in dispute ? OP-DH. 5. Relief. The learned executing Court on the basis of material placed on record i.e. income tax return and other evidence came to the conclusion that the objectors-appellants were in possession of the shop in dispute and were running the business in said shop in name and style of M/s. Bajwa Trading Company, Sangrur. On issue No. 2, it was also decided in favour of the objectors and it was held that Kuldeep had taken the shop in dispute on rent from decree-holder through its manager on 25.2.2004. Issue No. 3 was decided against the decree-holder. Similarly, issue No. 4 was also decided in favour of the objector and consequently, objections were allowed and execution application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned District Judge on appreciation of evidence has recorded a finding that the objectors have failed to prove their possession on the shop in dispute in any capacity. In order to come to this conclusion the learned District Judge has taken into consideration the evidence produced by the objectors on record including the income tax returns filed by objector-Satbir Kaur.
(3.) THE learned District Judge allowed the appeal primarily on the ground that in the evidence led by the objector she has failed to prove as to how she came in possession of the property. It was also noticed that she failed to prove as to what type of business was carried out by her. It was also noticed that a rent note was got prepared by Kuldeep Sigh husband of the objector, who on an earlier occasion had appeared as a witness in the eviction petition on behalf of the tenant.;