LexABDUL REHMAN SHORA (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. versus STATE OF J & K & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 75 ABDUL REHMAN SHORA (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. A " v. ' STATE OF J & K & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2009) JANUARY 7, 2009 B [MARKANDEY KATJU AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.) • REVISION: Jurisdiction of High Court while deciding a revision c petition arising out of order of executing court - High Court allowing judgment debtors to file certain documents and directing executing court to again get the suit land identified and demarcated - HELD: High Court exceeded its jurisdiction and tried to go behind the decree, which was not D permissible - Suit land had already been identified by Commissioners' Report even then High Court held that the land was yet to be identified and demarcated - High Court allowed itself to be swept away by some additional documents filed at revisional stage without hearing the decree-holders E though the same were available to judgment-debtors while the suit and execution proceedings were pending - Order of High Court suffers from jurisdictional error and, therefore, is set aside - Decree-holders entitled to proceed on the basis of Commissioners' Report and judgment-debtors would be F bound by orders as were passed by executing court- Decree - Execution of. A suit for perpetual injunction was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. But as the defendants did not allow the plaintiffs to fence the suit land, the decree-holders filed G an execution application. The objection raised by the 't judgment-debtors that identity of the land was not established and, therefore, the decree was not executable, was allowed by the executing court. The 75 H 76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R. A revision petition filed by the decree-holders was allowed by the High Court holding that the executing court did not take any steps to identify the suit land, extent, limit and location whereof was clearly given in the revenue records. Before the executing court, on an application B filed by the judgment-debtors, three officers - two from the Revenue Department and one from the Municipality concerned - were appointed as Commissioners. They demarcated the suit land, and the same was found in possession of the decree-holders. Counsel for the c judgment-debtors accepted the Commissioners' report as correct. On 14.12.2005 the executing court directed the judgment-debtors to satisfy the decree. Again on 27.6.2006 the executing court ordered the Director of Estates to file an undertaking regarding the 0 acknowledgment of the decree and demarcation of the land. The judgment-debtors challenged these two orders in another revision petition before the High Court with a prayer to allow them to place certain documents on record. The stand of the decree-holders was that by such E move the judgment-debtors were attempting to adduce fresh evidence in the form of manipulated and manufactured documents. However, the High Court again directed that the suit land be duly identified and demarcated. F G H In the instant appeal filed by the decree-holders, it was contended for the appellants that in the earlier revision petition the High Court having held the suit land to have been finally identified and demarcated, no question of passing fresh directions arose. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The High Court in its revisionary Y jurisdiction has tried to go behind the decree, which is not permissible. The High Court has returned a finding ABDUL REHMAN SHORA (D) BY LRS. & ORS. v. STATE 77 OF J & K & ANR. ' of fact that the decreetal land was yet to be duly A identified and demarcated and, thereafter, the High Court has chosen to open a Pandora's box by inviting suggestions from both the sides for identifying the decreetal land, which had already been identified by the Commissioners' report. [Para 8) [86-A-B] B 1.2. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in the matter and has chosen to allow itself to be swept away by some documents, which though available to the respondents/defendants, were never bothered to be filed either while the civil suit was in progress or even during C the execution. It is not known as to how and under what provision, the said documents came to be produced at the revisional stage, even without hearing the appellants/ plaintiffs, who were parties to the revision. [Para 9) ~6~-~ D 1.3. The impugned order is clearly erroneous and suffers from jurisdictional error and is, therefore, set aside.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.