AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Surjit Singh, Judge
Heard and gone through the record.
Petitioners, in whose favour a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction has been passed by the trial Court, are aggrieved by the order dated 31.12.2007, whereby their CMA Nos. 6/1999, 1/1997, 53/1995 and 167/1994, which they had filed alleging disobedience of the said decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, have been dismissed.
As per decree, which was passed in the year 1986, respondents have been restrained from interfering on portion of land bearing Khasra No. 327. Petitioners alleged that even after the passing of decree, which had been affirmed in appeal by the District Judge, respondents had been interfering in their land, which was the subject matter of the decree, by digging the land and stacking cow-dung and tethering their dog on the land, so as to prevent the petitioners from utilizing the same.
Respondents denied the allegations by filing replies.
Learned trial Court framed issue, whether the respondents had disobeyed the decree, and after recording the evidence of the parties, concluded that there was no interference. Consequently, all the aforesaid Civil Miscellaneous Applications were dismissed. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order of dismissal of their applications and have filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that report of Local Commissioner, which is though referred to in the impugned order of the Executing Court, has not been considered. According to her, report clearly indicates that respondents have been interfering in the land, in question, even after the passing of the decree.
It is mentioned in the impugned order that petitioners had tendered in evidence Local Commissioner''s report Ext. P8, but the order does not record as to what did the Local Commissioner report and whether the said report is relevant or not, and if relevant, whether it substantiates the allegation of the petitioners or not.
Consequently, present petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded to Executing Court, with a direction to decide all the aforesaid CMAs afresh, by taking into consideration the entire evidence, including Local Commissioner''s report(s), if relevant. A copy of this order be sent to Executing Court, which shall issue notice to the parties and decide the CMAs afresh, in terms of the observations made hereinabove.
Disposed of.