AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satyen Vaidya, J
Heard for some time.
During the course of hearing, Learned Senior Counsel representing the respondents/JDs, on instructions, has submitted that the JDs, who are respondents in the instant petition are no more in possession of any part of the land qua which a decree has been passed in favour of the decree-holder (petitioner herein) in Civil Suit No. 40 of 1998 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No.2, Hamirpur vide judgment dated 12.12.2007. The respondents/JDs have no concern with the possession of the land. He has further pointed out towards the contents of reply dated 2.2.2021 filed on behalf of the respondents/ JDs before the learned Executing Court, wherein it has been specifically mentioned as under:-
“It is incorrect. The respondent has already delivered the possession to the DH in accordance with laws per the judgment and of the Hon’ble Court. The decree holder has filed baseless objections as the JD has already delivered the possession to the DH prior to filing the objections as such the objections are not maintainable.”
He further submits that the respondents/JDs have no objection in case the petitioner-decree holder uses or utilizes the suit land in any manner.
In view of the stand taken by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/JDs, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner-decree holder has submitted that nothing survives in the instant petition and the same has been rendered infructuous.
In view of above, the present petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.