Present: Mr. J.R.Mittal Senior Advocate Vs. Bachan Singh ....Petitioner - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1092148
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnSep-11-2013
AppellantPresent: Mr. J.R.Mittal Senior Advocate
RespondentBachan Singh ....Petitioner
Excerpt:
cwp no.7871 of 2002 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh ***** cwp no.7871 of 2002 date of decision: 11.09.2013 bachan singh ....petitioner versus state of punjab and others ....respondents coram: hon’ble mr.justice satish kumar mittal hon’ble mr.justice mahavir s. chauhan present: mr.j.r.mittal, senior advocate, with mr.lalit sharma, advocate, for the petitioner. mr.aman bahri, additional advocate general, punjab, for respondent nos.1 to 4. none for respondent no.5. satish kumar mittal, j. (oral) the present writ petition was filed by bachan singh, who was put to civil imprisonment on 09.06.2001 for defiance of the order dated 24.12.1998 (annexure p-9) passed by this court, whereby it was ordered that the petitioner-ranjit singh be delivered the possession of the disputed land within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order failing which the petitioner shall be detained in civil prison till the possession is delivered. the said order was passed in a civil revision no.2062 of 1994 filed by ranjit singh son of santa singh, who claimed to be in possession of the virender singh adhikari 2013.09.17 11:07 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh cwp no.7871 of 2002 -2- land in dispute being legal heirs of santa singh in whose favour a decree of permanent injunction was passed and for which the execution application under order 21 rule 32 of the code of civil procedure, 1908, was filed by him. in the said execution application, an objection was filed that after the death of santa singh the decree cannot be executed by his son (ranjit singh) and ranjit singh has no locus standi to file the application. the executing court accepted the contention of the petitioner but the said order was set aside by the revisional court and the aforesaid order 24.12.1998 was passed. although the said order was affirmed by the supreme court but in the present petition, a prayer has been made by the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be put in civil imprisonment for unlimited time. counsel for the petitioner put reliance on the judgment of the supreme court in dodla narayan versus vetti reddemma latest judicial reports (civil) 1950 to 1988. this court vide order dated 07.01.2003, direct the superintendent jail, ludhiana, to release the petitioner forthwith. in pursuance of the said order, the petitioner was released from the civil imprisonment on 08.01.2003. by that time, the petitioner had undergone 1 year 6 months 29 days of imprisonment. learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the parties have amicably settled the matter and a copy of the said settlement has been placed on record. in view of the said settlement, we dismiss this writ petition having been rendered infructuous for two reasons, firstly, the parties have entered into an amicable settlement and, secondly, the petitioner has already been ordered to virender singh adhikari 2013.09.17 11:07 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh cwp no.7871 of 2002 -3- be released vide order dated 08.01.2003. (satish kumar mittal) judge (mahavir s. chauhan) judge1109.2013 adhikari virender singh adhikari 2013.09.17 11:07 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh
Judgment:

CWP No.7871 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CWP No.7871 of 2002 Date of Decision: 11.09.2013 Bachan Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE MAHAVIR S.

CHAUHAN Present: Mr.J.R.Mittal, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Lalit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Aman Bahri, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

None for respondent No.5.

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.

(ORAL) The present writ petition was filed by Bachan Singh, who was put to civil imprisonment on 09.06.2001 for defiance of the order dated 24.12.1998 (Annexure P-9) passed by this Court, whereby it was ordered that the petitioner-Ranjit Singh be delivered the possession of the disputed land within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order failing which the petitioner shall be detained in civil prison till the possession is delivered.

The said order was passed in a Civil Revision No.2062 of 1994 filed by Ranjit Singh son of Santa Singh, who claimed to be in possession of the Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.09.17 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.7871 of 2002 -2- land in dispute being legal heirs of Santa Singh in whose favour a decree of permanent injunction was passed and for which the execution application under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was filed by him.

In the said execution application, an objection was filed that after the death of Santa Singh the decree cannot be executed by his son (Ranjit Singh) and Ranjit Singh has no locus standi to file the application.

The Executing Court accepted the contention of the petitioner but the said order was set aside by the revisional court and the aforesaid order 24.12.1998 was passed.

Although the said order was affirmed by the Supreme Court but in the present petition, a prayer has been made by the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be put in civil imprisonment for unlimited time.

Counsel for the petitioner put reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dodla Narayan versus Vetti Reddemma Latest Judicial Reports (Civil) 1950 to 1988.

This Court vide order dated 07.01.2003, direct the Superintendent Jail, Ludhiana, to release the petitioner forthwith.

In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner was released from the civil imprisonment on 08.01.2003.

By that time, the petitioner had undergone 1 year 6 months 29 days of imprisonment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the parties have amicably settled the matter and a copy of the said settlement has been placed on record.

In view of the said settlement, we dismiss this writ petition having been rendered infructuous for two reasons, firstly, the parties have entered into an amicable settlement and, secondly, the petitioner has already been ordered to Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.09.17 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.7871 of 2002 -3- be released vide order dated 08.01.2003.

(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (MAHAVIR S.

CHAUHAN) JUDGE1109.2013 adhikari Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.09.17 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh