Gurudwara Sri Singh Sabha (Regd.) vs Varinder Sigh and Others

G.S. Sandhawalia, J.—The present petition is directed against the order dated 03.12.2011 passed by the Executing Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for leading additional evidence who wanted to place on record jamabandi for the year 2003-04 which is dated 30.07.2005. The ground which has prevailed with the Executing Court is that the petition is pending since 2005 and an earlier application was dismissed on 01.03.2011 as not pressed. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the jamabandi had already been prepared and had to be tendered but by mistake, the same could not be tendered and jamabandi for the year 1998-99 had been placed on record as Exhibit R8 & R9. It is averred that the property was owned by Ram Pal who is father of respondent No. 1 who sold it, i.e., Taur measuring 8 marlas to Bakshi Ram who further willed the 8 marlas of land on 13.03.2000 to the Gurudwara Sri Singh Sabha (Regd.), the present petitioner on 13.03.2000 wherein a dispensary on the back portion of the property is being run. Accordingly, it is contended that the said revenue record will be relevant for deciding the issue in question as to whether the ex parte ejectment order against Ganesh, tenant can be executed against the Gurudwara or not who claimed to be owner in possession of the property in question on the basis of the will. It is contended that only the certified copy of the jamabandi is to be tendered into evidence and the respondent can be compensated by payment of cost. Contrary to this, counsel for the respondent vehemently contends that there has been delay and the petitioners have been taking adjournment after adjournment and even the impugned order shows that 44 adjournments have taken place. It is also contended that the earlier application was dismissed as not pressed and there will be no relevance of the revenue records since the sale deed and the will are already on record and the Executing Court is to decide the issue on merits.

The petitioner cannot be put to loss for a mistake of their counsel on account of tendering jamabandi for the year 1998-99 whereas he had to place on record jamabandi for the year 2003-04 which is dated 30.07.2005. The respondent may be duly compensated by payment of costs. The respondent''s counsel, in such situation, contends that a direction may be issued to the Executing Court to decide the petition within a time-frame. Counsel for the petitioner has no objection if such direction is given.

Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.12.2011 is set aside and the petitioner is allowed to tender the jamabandi for the year 2003-04 on the next date of hearing before the Executing Court, Phagwara which is stated to be 07.04.2012 subject to payment of Rs. 5000/- as costs which will be paid on the said date. It is made clear that the said document shall be tendered on the said date or on the next date and no further adjournment shall be granted for this purpose. The Executing Court, Phagwara is directed to decide the execution application by 15.05.2012 since it is contended that the ejectment order was passed on 07.10.2003. Accordingly, the present revision petition is disposed of.