Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ganesh Dass vs Baisakhi Ram And Ors on 8 July, 2026
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2004
Serial No. 12
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CM(M) No. 31/2026
CM No. 859/2026
Ganesh Dass .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Ms. Vasudha Sharma, Advocate
vs
Baisakhi Ram and ors. ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Mandeep Singh Sambyal, Advocate with
Mr. Amit Khajuria, Advocate
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
ORDER(ORAL)
08.07.2026
1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled, ‘Periyammal (Dead
Through LRS & Ors. vs. V. Rajamani & Anr. Etc.’ reported in 2025
INSC 329 has directed the expeditious disposal of the execution
petition. So far as the present case is concerned, the petitioner is
aggrieved of the order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the court of learned
Munsiff, Samba (For short ‘the Executing court’), in an application
filed under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, whereby the learned Executing
court framed the issues and onus to prove the same has been placed
upon the respondent No. 1.
2. Ms. Vasudha Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
view of the material available on record, it was not open for the
learned Executing court to frame the issues. She has placed reliance
upon the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan, titled, ‘Smt. Shanti
Devi vs. Chimanaram Mantri Trust‘ decided on 08.08.2017.
2 CM(M) No. 31/2026
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2004
3. Per contra, Mr. Mandeep Singh Sambyal, learned counsel for
respondent No. 1/objector to the decree before the Executing court,
has submitted that in view of the contradictory reports submitted by
the revenue authorities and more particularly as the land in question
and not the suit property, belonged to the respondent No. 1, the order
impugned was passed. He has further submitted that it was the positive
case of respondent No. 1 before the executing court that the land upon
which he has raised construction of Khokha was different vis-a-vis the
subject matter of the decree.
4. After arguing for a while, learned counsel for the parties have agreed
for disposal of the present petition that the proceedings before the
executing court in the execution application preferred by the petitioner
be expedited and the learned executing court be directed to decide
controversy involved in the Execution petition as expeditiously as
possible. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has assured the Court
that respondent No. 1 will not seek un-necessary adjournment before
the learned executing court.
5. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of by directing
the learned Executing court to ensure that the controversy involved in
the Execution petition be concluded within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of this order. None of the parties shall seek un-
necessary adjournment and if necessary, the proceedings be conducted
on day to day basis as the judgment and decree was passed in the year
1986. The learned Executing court, thereafter, shall file the
compliance report with regard to the compliance of this judgment.
3 CM(M) No. 31/2026
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2004
6. Disposed of.
7. Copy of this order be sent to learned Executing court along with the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in case titled,
‘Periyammal (Dead Through LRS & Ors. vs. V. Rajamani & Anr. Etc.’
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
Jammu
08.07.2026
Neha-II Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
