Judgment:
ORDER
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. Harnek Singh petitioner has preferred the present revision petition against the order passed by the learned Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, Ropar dated 4.4.1994. By virtue of the impugned order the objections filed by the petitioner have been dismissed.
2. Bant Singh had filed a civil suit at Ropar. It was decided by Shri R.N. Moudgil, Sub Judge, 1st Class, Ropar on 18.12.1996. A mandatory injunction was is sued directing Kehar Singh and others to remove the obstruction. In execution of the said decree, the present petitioner preferred objections.
3. Claim of the petitioner is that he is owner in possession of the property through which the decree-holder seeks to pass daily used water of his house. The judgment and the decree dated 18.12.1986 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Ropar is illegal, null and void. It cannot be executed qua the petitioner; in other words cannot pass the water through the land of the petitioner. A family settlement of June, 1979 was asserted by virtue of which the petitioner claimed that he is owner in possession of the said land. He is not a party to the Civil suit and thus is not bound by the judgment and the decree dated 18.12.1986. Yet another plea taken up has been that water is already passing through the alternative channel which has been made by the Gram Panchayat. Thus, there is no obstruction in the flow of the water. The passing of the dirty water would be nuisance.
4. In reply the decree-holder took up the preliminary plea that objections are not maintainable. It was pointed that earlier the judgment-debtors contested. They filed appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court passed in the year 1986 and did not succeed. Present objections have simply been filed to delay the execution. It was denied that petitioner-objector is the owner of the land through which the water has to pass.
5. The learned trial Court framed the issues and concluded that there is no merit in the objections. Accordingly, the objection petition was dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition.
6. It is not being disputed during the course of arguments that the petitioner even had filed a suit for declaration that judgment and decree dated 18.12.1986, is null and void. The said suit was tried by the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, Kharar, and the same was dismissed on 16.1.1993. Once, the said suit has been dismissed by the court of competent civil jurisdiction at Kharar, indeed the petitioner cannot file objections. That would be an abuse of the process of the Court. In that view of the matter, it was rightly pointed out that present revision petition is totally without merit.
7. Irrespective of the aforesaid, the objections in any case were not maintainable in view of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It reads :-
'47. Questions to be determine by the Court executing decree - (1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.
(2) (************)
(3) Where a question arise as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the court.
(Explanation I- For the purpose of this section a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are parties to the suit.
(Explanation II- (a) For the purposes of this Section, a purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree is passed; and
(b) all questions relating to the delivery of possession of such property to such purchaser or his representatives shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of this section)'.
The code of civil procedure specifically permits the parties to the litigation and their representatives to raise and contest plea pertaining to execution, discharge and satisfaction of decree. The petitioner does not even allege that he is the legal representative of the judgment-debtor. Being so, indeed he could not raise the objections in execution. In the case of Nand Lal v. Inderjit and Ors., (1992-2)102 Punjab Law Reporter 9, it was held that when objector is not claiming himself to be the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor, he can only file a civil suit and not the objection petition. Similar, is the position herein and it is crystal clear that objection in any case were not maintainable.
8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed that Panchayat has set up a drain and the water of the decree-holder respondent is passing through the same. He suggested that a local commissioner can be appointed to verify the said fact. But indeed even if the Panchayat has set up a drain, it will not take away the civil right of the decree-holder in pursuance of the judgment and the decree of the court. No useful purpose is going to be served by appointing a Local Commissioner. In those circumstances, it must follow that the revision petition is totally devoid of any merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No order as to costs.