Gurdwara Singh Sabha Committee,Amritsar v. Harpal Dass @ Harpal Singh Chela And Others



           



!

"#$#% &&

 ' (  ( )) * ) (













&&&

# #% + ,-$ .

(( / .

(  .  (

&&& $0%!

% $ )

1. )& (   .

2(.

 


 
 

 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
   

 
!

"

 .

2(.

& 4.5 "

#
 





$"

%& '%'$
(  

 )
* 
 

(( 

  
 
#
 

( 



+


 
(

 
 ,

(


(
,
-(

.

-(
 
 




 
* 

 





(
  

(


'/
(
"0
(
1

 




  ,


#,
 


(
( 

 ,

 

 ,


 


(
,
 (



%"

%$ '%"0
#


(
 
(


(
 
#



( 
 (
 
(







#
  (
(

( 

2
331
4(
$'




+ 

 +(

 


"/%5




(











 


 




 


#
 (

( 
* 
 
#
 

 
,

67
+ 


"/ "% '%"/
#

*


 
(
+48'$9

'%'% 

 

"0 %"

'%'%
#




 

 :
   

   

            

   

   

       

    

      

   

     

           

     
    

                   !                  

       

                      

           " 

 

           "    #      $         

 %            "       %        

                  

      

  

  %!    &   

  



             

          

  


           
     '()  *+,  +-$       



 ,   +-    *+  $        

!    &     

.!     

       /    '()    *+    ,   +-  $       /      

01/2 # 2 -334'5)  ') -+('/)6   !             

     

             

  

      .!  "      7   !           

    .!  


    %    82 /  ,$ %  +993'5)$:

-;48"         .!   

   

     

      !   6 2.

After the dismissal of the revision petition, the petitioner society filed an objection petition on 28.01.2020 i.e. within 14 days from the date the revision petition filed by the judgment debtors was dismissed, claiming that they are in possession of the property. The Executing Court has dismissed the objection petition. 3.

Learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that these objection petitions have been filed by the third party and, hence, it was incumbent upon the court to frame issues and grant opportunity to the petitioners to lead evidence. He further contends that the original defendants not only contested the suit but also objected to the

CR-5214-2023 -4suit on the ground that the Gurdwara is managed and run by the members of the society.

4.

This Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel representing the parties.

5.

It is not necessary that in every case, the third party objections are required to be decided only after framing the issues. It depends upon the nature of objections and prima facie substance therein. The petitioner herein is a society. It is managed by its Members and some of them were already a party to the suit. They contested the suit tooth and nail. Thereafter, they contested the execution petition. After having lost from the High Court in a revision petition on 14.01.2020, they filed the objection petition through their society. In fact, the Members constitute the Society which acts through its Members, who have already contested and lost the litigation.

6.

In view of the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere is made out.

7.

Hence, dismissed.

((

( 

,

(
 








4 .

2(.5

 %$ ""

'%'$

<

 ;
 <  =<!

;
 ( =<!