CR No. 6128 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6128 of 2008 Decided on : 11-11-2008 Ram Dass ....Petitioner VERSUS Prem Chand ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Vikram Punia, Advocate for the petitioner. MAHESH GROVER, J This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.10.2008. The petitioner is the judgment debtor facing execution proceedings initiated by the decree-holder i.e Prem Chand, respondent in a suit for specific performance by which the petitioner was directed to execute and get the sale deed registered in favour of the respondent-decree holder. The decree was upheld right upto the stage of Regular Second Appeal. The petitioner then raised an objection that the possession of the property could not be delivered as the decree was only regarding the direction to execute the decree and get the sale deed registered. The facts of this case reveal that at the time of execution of the agreement to sell the possession of the property was delivered on 29.11.2001 to the respondent and thereafter it was forcibly taken away from him by the petitioner. CR No. 6128 of 2008 2 Registered notices were sent by the respondent to the petitioner which were received by him and thereafter during the course of proceedings he filed an affidavit and assured the respondent that he will vacate the house till 5th September, 2002 and signed the same in the presence of the witnesses. On 26th September, 2002 he appeared before the Incharge of the Police Post, Kot Mohalla, Sonepat and also admitted that the half possession of the house in suit has been given to the respondent and he will vacate the entire house till 10.10.2002 but the petitioner did not vacate the premises as undertaken by him and continued to be in possession of the half house. The present objections have been filed by him on the plea that the possession could not be ordered to be given pursuant to the decree which only contemplated the execution of the sale deed and no more. A perusal of the head note of the suit also reveals that it was a suit for specific performance and possession. The whole tone and tenor of the averments made in the plaint reveal that the petitioner was seeking possession of the property as well, otherwise there was necessity for him to plead the facts leading to his dispossession. Ideally, a mere correction would have been required in the decree which could have been achieved by making an application. It is also true that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree . But the facts of the case are a manifestation of the dishonest intention of the petitioner; who has apparently entered the possession of the property without authority. He has not denied the factum of sale of the entire property. There is no material to show that he had been granted any licence to possess the property. The objections have therefore been dismissed correctly vide the impugned order dated 23.10.2008 and warrants of possession of the property comprised in sale deed executed and CR No. 6128 of 2008 3 registered have also been issued rightly for 22.11.2008. On 7th November, 2008 when the matter was listed before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to seek instructions from the petitioner as to whether he is willing and ready to hand over the possession specially in view of the facts which have been detailed above. Today when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he is willing to hand over the possession to the respondent but in fact it is not the respondent who is interested in taking the possession rather some other elements which can be termed to be anti social are interested in grabbing the possession so that the petitioner may be involved in other false cases. Implicit in the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the lurking dishonesty of the petitioner who wishes to cling on to the possession despite the fact that he had no authority to retain it. In view of the fact that the petitioner has dishonestly encroached upon the property which was a subject matter of a sale deed and entered the possession without any authority of law and is also showing his intention of clinging on to the possession illegally. There is no infirmity in the impugned order which has been passed by which warrants of possession have been issued for 22nd November, 2008. There being no infirmity in the impugned order and the revision being devoid of any merit, it is hereby dismissed with a further direction that immediate police help should be given to the respondent to ensure that the possession is delivered by 22.11.2008. Superintendent of Police, Sonepat is directed to ensure that no untoward incident takes place during the process. It is also needless to CR No. 6128 of 2008 4 clarify here that if the petitioner tries to obstruct the proceedings, the police officials will be free to take any action against him if such a situation may arise. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Executing Court forthwith. November 11 , 2008 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge