C.R. No. 4500 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4500 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: March 31, 2009 Ranjit Singh and another .. Petitioners Vs. Verkha Kaur and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. B. S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocates for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for respondents No. 4 and 5. Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioners in the present case are aggrieved against the order dated 7.6.2008, passed by the learned Executing Court, adjourning the proceedings in execution sine die till the decision of the Regular Second Appeal pending in this Court. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioners filed a suit for possession for land measuring 31 kanals and 7 marlas, which was decreed on 6.3.1992 by the Civil Court. The decree was upheld upto Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Suit filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 on 6.2.2002 inter alia seeking declaration to the effect that they had become owners in possession of the property on the basis of adverse possession is pending, however, there is no interim stay. In execution of the decree, passed in favour of the petitioners, respondents No. 4 and 5 filed objections claiming that they are in possession of the property in dispute. The same were dismissed on 10.9.2004. In Civil Revision No. 4493 of 2004 on 30.10.2006, this Court passed a consenting order directing that in case respondents No. 4 and 5 are found to be in possession of Khasra Nos. 819, 824, 825 and 828, the decree will not be executed against them during the pendency of the Regular Second C.R. No. 4500 of 2008 [2] Appeal filed by them where their possession had been protected. It is in execution proceedings thereafter that the learned court below without coming to a conclusion as to who is in possession of the aforesaid khasra numbers had simply adjourned the case sine die. The petitioners being aggrieved against that order are before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the tone and tenor of the consenting order passed by this Court on 30.10.2006 shows that it was only in case respondents No. 4 and 5 were found to be in possession of the aforesaid khasra numbers that the decree was not to be executed. However, the learned court below without permitting the parties to substantiate their claim regarding possession simply adjourned the proceedings sine die. As the petitiones are entitled to prove that in fact the aforesaid khasra numbers are not in possession of respondents No. 4 and 5 and accordingly, they are entitled to execute the decree qua those khasra numbers. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that they do not have any objection to the aforesaid course being adopted. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the consenting order passed by this Court on 30.10.2006, it is evident that the claim set up by respondents No. 4 and 5 therein was that they would be satisfied if the land, which is the subject-matter of the earlier litigation and pending consideration in the Regular Second Appeal before this Court and is in their possession, is not attached in execution of the decree in favour of the petitioners till such time the Regular Second Appeal is decided. It was for the reason that while admitting the Regular Second Appeal, this Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession. As the petitioners are claiming that respondents No. 4 and 5 are not in possession of Khasra Nos. 819, 824, 825 and 828, they can very well execute the decree against those khasra numbers as the earlier order passed by this Court does not debar the same, whereas stand of respondents No. 4 and 5 is that they are in possession of the aforesaid khasra numbers. To reach to a conclusion as to who is in possession of those khasra numbers, the learned court below was required to afford the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claim. The same having not been done, in my opinion, there is miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order, the learned court below is directed to proceed with the execution by granting opportunity to the parties to lead evidence to prove their possession on the aforesaid khasra numbers and deal with the same in terms of the earlier consenting order passed by C.R. No. 4500 of 2008 [3] this Court on 30.10.2006. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 31.3.2009 mk