Parveen Kumar Garg v. Raj Kumar and Others

IN T

Parveen Kumar Raj Kumar and

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

Mr MANDEEP PA Part-A

1.

party objector, Additional Civil 125/2019, wher Haryana Waqf B Brief Facts

2.

Res order against th passed in Rent ground of arrea decree, the decr

3.

Du the judgment-d

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

CR

De Garg

VERSUS Others

N'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDE r. S.K.Jindal, Advocate for the pe r. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for re -.- ANNU J. e present revision petition has b challenging the order dated 1 l Judge (Senior Division), Kaith reby the application moved by Board as a party in the execution spondents No.1 to 4, being decre he judgment-debtor Vipin Kuma Petition No. 1782 of 2014 by th ars of rent and personal necessit ee holders filed the execution pe uring pendency of the execution debtor, moved an application f

JAB AND HARYANA ARH R-5814-2025 (O&M) cided on 02.09.2025

....Petitioner ....Respondents EEP PANNU etitioner. espondents No.1 to 3. been filed by the petitioner, a thi

13.08.2025 passed by the learn hal, in Execution Petition No. EX the petitioner for impleading n petition was dismissed. ee holders, had obtained an evict ar vide judgment dated 25.02.20 he Rent Controller, Kaithal, on ty. In order to enforce the evict etition. n, the present petitioner, brother for impleading the Haryana W

- ird-ned XE-tion tion

Board as a nece is situated belon Committee, Ka subsequently th out to the petitio was inexecutabl party.

4.

dismissed the ap same, the petitio Arguments of t

5.

Lea the revision peti the eviction ord view of Section property. It is ar in the original e upon them.

6.

It i in the execution tenanted premis no concern with came to an end against the righ Board. essary party, claiming that the la ngs to the Waqf Board, which aithal, for 99 years vide lease he Board had resumed possessio oner himself. On this basis, the p le and that Waqf Board being the e learned Executing Court, after pplication vide impugned order d oner has preferred the present rev the Petitioner arned counsel for the petitioner ition. It is submitted that the Ren der dated 25.02.2019, had no jur n 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995, as th rgued that neither the Waqf Boar eviction proceedings and therefo s contended that the Waqf Boar n, as the matter directly involves ses. It is argued that the decree h h the property once the lease in f d, and any order of eviction obt ts of the Waqf Board or the pet

and on which the tenanted premi had leased it out to the Munici deed dated 07.12.1967, and t on of the premises and re-lease petitioner contended that the dec e true owner ought to be added a r considering the rival submissio dated 13.08.2025. Aggrieved by vision. has reiterated the grounds taken nt Controller, Kaithal, while pass risdiction to entertain the matter he property is admittedly the W rd nor the petitioner was implead ore the decree passed is not bind rd is the necessary and proper pa s its ownership and control over holders/respondents No.1 to 4 h favour of the Municipal Commit tained by them cannot be enfor titioner claiming through the W

- ises ipal that d it cree as a ons, n in sing r in ded ding arty ave ttee

7.

Lea impleaded in t adjudicated, and of the impugne Waqf Board in t Arguments of t

8.

On has opposed the before the Exec device to delay

25.02.2019. The and therefore ha

9.

It i order against th enforcing that o Waqf Board or execution petiti reopen question

10.

Cou when a similar main proceeding Findings

11.

I ha the record. arned counsel further argued that the execution petition, the c d multiplicity of proceedings wil ed order dated 13.08.2025 and the execution proceedings. the Respondents n the other hand, learned counsel e petition. He has reiterated the uting Court. It is contended that the execution of the eviction de e petitioner is none else but the r as no independent locus to interv is further argued that the Rent he tenant Vipin Kumar, and t order. The question of title, ow r the Municipal Committee are on. The Executing Court canno ns that were never raised in the ev unsel submitted that the applica prayer to implead the Waqf Boa gs. He prayed for dismissal of th ave considered the submissions

t unless the Haryana Waqf Boar ontroversy cannot be effectiv ll arise. He prayed for setting as for allowing impleadment of l for the respondents/decree hold submissions which were advan t the present application was onl ecree which had attained finality real brother of the judgment deb vene in the matter. Controller had passed the evict the present execution is only wnership, or leasehold rights of e wholly outside the scope of ot go behind the decree, nor can viction proceedings. ation was devoid of merits, more ard had been earlier rejected in he revision petition with costs. of both sides and carefully peru

- d is vely side ders nced ly a y on btor, tion for n it e so

12.

of 2014 has at competent forum eviction decree. the decree and c subject matter o

13.

and that he has of the executi proceedings, bu passed after due

14.

debtor never ra Board during th present petitione aimed only at d provisions of t proceedings for Municipal Comm

15.

On judgment debto judgment debto neither necessar

e eviction order dated 25.02.201 ttained finality and has not bee m. The execution petition is li The law is well settled that the cannot examine questions of titl of the eviction proceedings. e plea of the petitioner that the p obtained a lease from the Board on petition. Such questions m ut they cannot be allowed to dera e adjudication by a competent Re e learned Executing Court has aised any plea regarding surren he eviction proceedings. The b er, to set up the rights of the W delaying the execution. The tria the Waqf Act are not attracted r eviction were ever initiated mittee or the decree holders. nce the decree was passed in favo or Vipin Kumar, the executio r in accordance with law. The i ry nor proper for enforcement of

19 passed in Rent Petition No. 17 en shown to be set aside by a imited to enforcement of the s Executing Court cannot go beh le or ownership which were not property belongs to the Waqf Bo d is a matter extraneous to the sco may be agitated in independ ail the execution of a decree alrea ent Controller. s rightly noted that the judgm nder of the premises to the W belated attempt by his brother, Waqf Board is clearly collusive a al court has also recorded that d in the present execution as by the Waqf Board against our of the decree holders against on can only proceed against impleadment of the Waqf Board f the eviction order.

- any said hind oard ope dent ady ment and

Conclusion

16.

Thi perversity in the dated 13.08.202 Part-B

1.

By impugned order (Senior Division Code of Civil dismissed.

2.

At third-party obje order passed on appealable unde available, the re

3.

In v The petitioner, accordance with

4.

Acc

13.08.2025 pas Kaithal, whereb Procedure, 190 upheld.

is Court, in exercise of revisiona e reasoning adopted by the Exe 25 does not call for interference. way of the present revision peti r dated 13.08.2025 passed by t n), Kaithal, whereby the objectio Procedure, 1908 filed by the p the very outset, it deserves to ctor. The law is well settled th n third-party objections in execut er the Code of Civil Procedure. O visional jurisdiction of this Cour view of the matter, the present re if so advised, may avail of th h law. cordingly, the revision petitio ssed by the learned Additiona by the objection under Order X 8 filed by the petitioner/third

al jurisdiction, finds no infirmity ecuting Court. The impugned or ition, petitioner has also challeng the learned Additional Civil Jud on under Order XXI Rule 97 of petitioner/third party objector w be noticed that the petitioner i hat no civil revision lies against tion proceedings. Such an orde Once a specific remedy of appea rt cannot be invoked. evision petition is not maintainab he appropriate statutory remedy on is dismissed and order da al Civil Judge (Senior Divisio XXI Rule 97 of the Code of C party objector was dismissed

- y or rder ged dge was is a t an er is al is ble. y in ated on), Civil , is

Part-C

1.

passed by the le the warrants of p

2.

In v in the order date premises has be and order dated

3.

Pen

September 02, 2 tripti

Whethe

Whethe e petitioner has also challenged earned Additional Civil Judge ( possession of the demised premi view of the findings given herein ed 13.08.2025, whereby the war een issued. Accordingly, the pre

13.08.2025 is upheld. nding application(s), if any, also 2025

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

d impugned order dated 13.08.20 Senior Division), Kaithal, where ises has been issued. nabove, no interference is called rrants of possession of the demi esent revision petition is dismis stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE king

- eby for ised