Judgment:
N.K. Kapoor, J.
1. This revision petition is against the order of the executing Court dated 25 3-1991 whereby the objections filed by the judgment debtor have been dismissed summarily.
2. Briefly put, Gian Singh-specified landlord of the demised premises-filed an ejectment application against tenant Surjit Singh- Judgment debtor-which was allowed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 17-7 1989. Surjit Singh judgment debtor-petitioner filed revision No. 2636 of 1989 before the High Court which too was dismissed on 26-7-J989. On 21-9 1989 Gian Singh decree holder filed the execution application Pursuance to the not issued to the judgment-debtor, the judgment-debtor raised a number of objections mainly contending that he has purchased the suit property from Ram Singh-brother of Surjit Singh on 9-1-199 and this way Gian Singh decree holder is left with no right or title in the suit property. Decree-holder, on the other hand, submitted that sale deed dated 9 1-1991 was sham and bogus document and the same does not in any manner effect the right of the decree-holder to execute the decree In addition thereto, the decree holder urged that judgment debtor has already filed a suit on 4-12-1989 seeking permanent injunction against the decree-holder. However, in this suit judgment-debtor's prayer for interim injunction was declined by the court The executing court found no merit in any of the objections raised by the judgment-debtor and so dismissed the same vide order dated 25-3-1991.
3. Before me learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of the executing court on the ground that the various objections raised by him could not have been dismissed by the executing court summarily. He further urged that in view of the specific averments made by the judgment-debtor that there has been a family partition and as per the said family partition, the suit property fell to the share of Ram Singh and his sister Swarn Kaur and Kulwant Kaur who have sold the same to the petitioner vide sale deed dated 9-1-1991 could not be brushed aside only on the ground that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree. He further urged that the court/ executing court is to keep in mind the subsequent events/supervening circumstances and mould the relief in the changed circumstances. The counsel relied upon Madan Lal v. Harkishan Lal, (1966) 68 P. L. R. D. 14.; Zarina Begum v. Faquir Hussain, 1990 P. L. J. 289.; Ajaib Singh v. Saon Singh, (1991-2) 100 P. L. R. 318 and Charanjit Singh v. Manmohan Singh, (1989-1) 95 P. L. R. 494
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, on the other hand, has laid much emphasis upon the order of the Rent Controller dated 17-7-1989 and the dismissal of the revision petition by this court vide order dated 26-7-1989 and thus, contended that in view of this accepted position that the judgment debtor has admitted the decree holder to be his landlord, the decree-holder has every right to seek execution of the duly passed order of the court, fn addition to this, the counsel further contended that the sale-deed in favour of the judgment-debtor is a forged document as Rim Singh or other vendees had no right or title in the suit property. In any case, the matter sought to be adjudged between the parties cannot be subject matter of any execution application, and perhaps for this reason, the judgment debtor before raising even the objections in, the executing court had already filed a civil suit on 4-12-1989-copy of which was placed before the executing court. On these premises, the learned counsel for the respondent urged that revision-petition is wholly without merit and the same be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. It is the admitted position between the parties that Gian Singh-a specified landlord filed an application for eviction of his tenant-the petitioner -before a Rent Controller and order of eviction was passed on '7-7-1989 The revision petition filed against the order of the trial court was dismissed on merit on 26 7-1990.
7. The judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner have in fast no applicability on the facts of the present case. In Madan Lal's case(1966) 68 P. L. R. D. 14, landlord sold the premises after filing of application and so the court came to the conclusion that he ceases to be the landlord. In the present case, a valid order of eviction has been passed by the Rent Controller, which has been affirmed in revision as well. This way, this authority does not help the stand now set up by the petitioner. Similarly, the observation of the court in Zan'na Begum v. Faquir Hussain, 1990 P. L. J. 289., that 'supervening facts which come into being during pendency of the litigation can be taken into consideration while deciding the matter' has hardly any application. In Ajaib Singh's case (supra) the court observed as under : -
'The appellate court can take notice of subsequent events to shorten litigation and for doing substantial justice to the parties, because by taking these events into consideration, the original relief claimed in the suit has become inappropriate.'
8. Last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that it was incumbent upon the executing court to frame issues and as such, has no jurisdiction to summarily dismiss the objection raised with regard to the execution of the decree. For this the learned counsel relied upon the judgment reported as Charanjit Singh v. Manmohan Singh4. In this case a decree passed against M/s. Shivalik Savings and General Investment Limited was being executed, when objections were raised against the attachment of the house alleging that the house was owned by both of them who were husband and wife and they had nothing to do with the money decree passed against M/s. Shivalik Savings & General Investment Limited. On these facts, it was held that the executing Court could not decide the matter without framing issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence. However, in the present case, there is a valid order of eviction passed against the petitioner who on his own has admitted the respondent to be his landlord. The matter attained finality with the dismissal of the revision-petition by this court on 26-7-1990. The present attempt by way of setting up of the sale-deed is merely to frustrate a valid decree passed against the judgment debtor. In any case, the objections raised are beyond the purview of the executing Court and can be settled by a civil court in a regular trial, for which, the petitioner has already filed a suit.
9. Accordingly, I find no merit in this revision-petition and dismiss the same. The parties to appear before the executing court on 15 9-1992.