Chiman Ram Ram Kumar Laxmi Narain Sheo Chand Rai Poddar Charity Trust And ORS v. Neetu Dahiya

112+242 (4 cases)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** Date of Decision: 25.07.2025 Chiman Ram Ram Kumar Laxmi Narain Sheo Chand Rai Poddar Charity Trust and others ..... Appellants

Versus

Neetu Dahiya and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER

Present:

Mr. Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Akshay Mittal, Advocate, Mr. Ivan S. Khosa, Advocate, Mr. Shivam Grover, Advocate and Ms. Bhumika Sachen, Advocate for the appellants (in all cases).

***** HARSH BUNGER J. (ORAL) CM-3560-C-2025 CM-3584-C-2025 CM-3587-C-2025 CM- -C-2025 These are the

Applications are accordingly disposed of.

CM-3559-C-2025 CM-3583-C-2025 CM-3586-C-2025 CM- -C-2025 These are the Applications are accordingly disposed of.

CM-7578-C-2025 CM-7576-C-2025 CM-7574-C-2025 CM- -C-2025 These are the This order shall dispose of four Execution Second Appeals (ESA-23-2025, ESA-24-2025, ESA-25-2025 and ESA-29-2025) and for the sake of convenience, the facts are being derived from ESA-23-2025 titled as "Chiman Ram Ram Kumar Laxmi Narain Sheo Chand Rai Poddar Charity Trust and others Vs. Neetu Dahiya and others".

2.

The present appeal (ESA-23-2025) has been filed for setting aside judgment dated 12.07.2023, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Loharu and judgment dated 29.09.2023, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani.

3.

Briefly, respondent No.1 (Neetu Dahiya) is a decree holder in respect of four plots bearing plots No.126, 127, 128 and 129, in total measuring 13.33 kanals, situated at Village Loharu on the basis of four separate judgments and decrees dated 12.11.2005. 3.1 In reference to the said decrees, four separate execution applications were filed wherein objections were submitted by the present appellants, State of Haryana and others.

3.2 The objections submitted by the present appellants came to be dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated 12.07.2023. 3.3.

Feeling aggrieved against the dismissal of their objections, the present appellants preferred an appeal before the District Judge, which was also dismissed on 29.09.2023.

4.

In the aforementioned circumstances, the appellants have filed the instant appeals.

5.

During the course of hearing of these appeals, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 had made a statement that so far as the plots of the appellants herein are concerned, they are plot Nos. 36, 37, 147 and 156 (as indicated in Annexures A-6, A-7 and A-8 attached to ESA-23-2025) and that the same are separate and distinct from the plots of respondent No.1 i.e. plots No.126, 127, 128 and 129 (as described in the decree dated 12.11.2005).

6.

Learned counsel representing respondent No.1 further submits that so far as the plots of the appellants herein i.e. plots No. 36, 37, 147 and

156 are concerned, respondent No.1 has no concern with the same and that neither they have interfered into the possession of these plots nor they will interfere in their possession henceforth.

7.

Keeping in view the aforesaid stand taken by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he would not press these appeals any further. 8.

In view of the aforesaid stand taken on behalf of the respective parties, the present appeals are disposed of accordingly. 10.

25.07.2025 (HARSH BUNGER) Himani JUDGE

1. Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No

2. Whether reportable :

Yes/No