VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palwal vide which objections to the execution of decree filed by the petitioner were ordered to be rejected by observing as under : "28. After hearing the arguments of both the objectors and DH, this court is of the view that the Hon'ble Court of Sh. C.R. Goel vide judgment and decree dated 20.9.78 has declared suit property of DH and belong to DH and it has been held that property does not vest in Gram Panchayat Hassanpur. It has already been held that Punjab Village Common Land Act is not applicable upon sale deed of 15.3.1944. The finding of the lower court passed by the judgment and decree dated 20.9.78 has been held up to the Hon'ble High Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.4.03. The contention for the objector is of no force that vide judgment and decree in civil suit No. 477 of 1989, G.P. Hassanpur was declared owner. It is observed by this court that DH is not a party in civil suit and judgment and decree will have no effect upon judgment and decree dated 20.9.78 which has been upheld up to Hon'ble High Court vide its judgment and decree dated 30.4.03. The contention of objector is of no help that notified Area Committee who has defendant No. 3 but later on given up. This court agree with submission of DH when the provisions of Punjab Village Common Land Act 1961 were not applicable upon the sale deed dated 15.3.1944. The Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 20.9.78 held that land will not vest in G.P. Hassanpur. It is also observed that when DH given up Notified Area Committee before the Hon'ble Court of Sh. C.R. Goel. If there would have any mischief on the part of plaintiff/DH Hon'ble court could not allow the DH to give up Notified Area Committee. DH has also placed on record copy of notification dated 14.11.1977. There is no recital that land of DH has been notified as the property of Municipal Committee. DH has also separately filed an affidavit on 30.5.2006 to the effect that judgment and decree dated 1.2.1992 is not binding upon the right, interest and title of the DH. The further contention of the objector is also no force that civil suit No. 253/2000 filed with the title Jagdish Chand v. Tehsildar cum Administrator as the DH has shown the property in his possession. It is observed by this court that Hon'ble court of Sh. C.R. Goel in his judgment dated 20.9.78 relied upon site plan Ex.PW8/1 wherein same property shown by letter CFBF is already in possession of the DH and the remaining property shown by letter ABCD is not in possession and the Hon'ble Court of Sh. C.R. Goel has passed a decree for possession with costs in favour of the DH/plaintiff against the defendant with regard to the suit land shown with letter ABCD measuring 104 feet x 72 feet as shown in the site plan Ex.PW8/1. It is further held that plaintiff shall be entitled to possession of the same by way of demolition of the construction which is in existence on the same. It has been further held that a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant by restraining the defendants from raising any construction on the suit land has been passed. The plaintiff has also placed on record certified copy of plaint of the suit titled as Jagdish Chand v. Tehsildar cum Administrator. It is a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the land in suit mentioned in para No. 1 of the plaint shown by letters ABCEFGH as depicted in the site plan. The measurement and boundaries of the said property are as under :- East 58'.9" Property of Net Ram son of Sobha Ram and Shiv Charan s/o Gokal Ram son of Sobha Ram. West 84'.6" Open land of Jagdish Chand (plaintiff) North 58 ft. Civil hospital building and staff quarters. South 36'.10" Road 29. Perusal of the copy certified plaint of the suit titled Jagdish Chand v. Tehsildar cum Administrator. It is suit for permanent injunction which has been filed regarding his suit property which was already in possession of plaintiff. When the suit of plaintiff was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 20.9.78. The objection filed by the objector G.P. are false and frivolous and not sustainable. Hence, liable to be rejected."
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has challenged this order firstly on the ground that the decree dated 20.9.1978 was not binding on the petitioner as the name of Gram Panchayat was deleted on the statement made by the plaintiff decree holder. In that view of the matter the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the objections raised by it were third party objections and therefore, required to be adjudicated after giving an opportunity to the parties to prove their case as it has to be tried as a civil suit. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, is that summarily dismissal of its objections cannot be sustained in law. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that as the petitioner had not asked for an opportunity to lead evidence, therefore, the court was justified in summarily rejecting the objections. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted as the Executing Court was bound to follow the law and established procedure as envisaged under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code to deal with third party objections to the execution.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , the revision petition is allowed and the impugned part of the order is set aside and case is remanded to the learned Executing Court to dispose of the objections filed by the petitioner after framing issues and giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their stand. Petition allowed.;