Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR NO.4712 OF 201.DATE OF DECISION :
8. h AUGUST 201 Municipal Corporation, Faridabad & another ….
Petitioners Versus Dharambir & others ….
Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL **** Present : Mr.Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for the petitioneRs.**** L.N.MITTAL, J.
(ORAL) Judgment debtors (JDs)-Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and its Joint Commissioner have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 20.05.2013 Annexure P-5 passed by the executing Court thereby dismissing application Annexure P-4 filed by the petitioners under Order 11 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) for production of documents by decree holders/respondents.
Suit filed by Murari Lal (since deceased and represented by respondents no.1 and 2) and by Premwati respondent no.3 (plaintiff no.2) was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.05.1994 Annexure P-1 thereby restraining the defendants/petitioners from interfering in any manner in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land.
Respondents/decree holders have filed execution petition Annexure P-2 alleging that the petitioners have disobeyed judgment and decree Annexure P-1 by demolishing constructions of the respondents -2- CR No.4712 of 2013 existing there including 6 shops, tin shed, room, tubewell room etc.and electric connection of tubewell was also disconnected and its fittings and building materials of the decree holders were removed.
Various other averments have also been made.
JDs filed objections Annexure P-3 in the execution proceedings.
While the case was fixed for remaining evidence of JDs after the decree holders had led their evidence and after JDs had also led some evidence, they moved application Annexure P-4 requiring the decree holders to produce documents of electric connection of tubewell and documents regarding house tax, chulla tax or any other tax imposed by local authority on alleged building.
The said application has been dismissed by the executing Court by order Annexure P-5 which is under challenge in this revision petition.
I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioners reiterated that since the decree holders have alleged the existence of building and tubewell and its electricity connection in the property, they are required to produce the aforesaid documents relating to the same.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention which is completely meritless and frivolous.
Existence of construction and tubewell connection in the suit land was pleaded by the plaintiffs in the suit itself and the suit stands decreed.
Consequently in execution proceeding, the JDs cannot be permitted to require the decree holders to produce documents -3- CR No.4712 of 2013 relating to electricity connection of tubewell or the building existing in the suit land.
The said question already stands adjudicated in the suit.
In addition to it, provision of Order 11 Rule 14 CPC for production of documents by the opposite party is available before framing of issues.
In the instant case, however, JDs moved application Annexure P-4 after the decree holders had concluded their evidence and after JDs themselves had also led some evidence.
Consequently it was not the stage for moving application for production of documents.
Besides it, admittedly one decree holder appeared in the witness box.
He could be cross-examined regarding the alleged documents.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find that application Annexure P-4 filed by the JDs/petitioners has been rightly dismissed by the executing Court being completely meritless and frivolous.
Impugned order of the executing Court, therefore, does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error requiring interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The revision petition is not only meritless but is completely frivolous and deserves to be dismissed with costs so as to curb such frivolous and luxury litigation, particularly by public authorities at public expense.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine with costs of `5,000/- to be deposited by the petitioners with the registry of this Court.
If the costs amount is not deposited within two months from today, the case shall be listed for this purpose.
8th August, 2013 (L.N.MITTAL) ‘raj’ JUDGE Raj Kumar 2013.08.12 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh