Civil Revision No. 1165 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1165 of 2009 Date of decision: 20.03.2009. M/s Shri Balaji Rice Mills ....Petitioner Versus Fakiria and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate, for the petitioner ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioner (M/s Shri Balaji Rice Mills) had, on its own showing, made purchase of a part of the property in the suit during the pendency of the trial, vide sale deed No. 1279 dated 11.6.2003. It was respondent no.1-Fakiria who sold that eight kanals area to it. The plaintiff- petitioner thereby became co-sharer to the extent of 160/832 share in the total land measuring 41 kanals 12 marlas. The allegation of the petitioner is that the vendor also put it into possession of the land comprised in Khasra No.20 Min West (4-0) and 21 Min West (4-0) and it raised a boundary wall around it. Likewise, defendant-respondent no.2-Jasmer also purchased an equal area vide registered sale deed No. 428/1 dated 23.4.2007 and became a co-sharer, to the extent of 160/832 shares therein. Fakiria aforementioned sold 23 kanals 4 marlas area out of the above land to respondent No.3-M/s Shri Krishna Agrotec, Kurukshetra, vide registered sale deed dated 7.11.2006 and the vendee thereby became joint owner, to the extent of 624/832 shares, of the total land. In Civil Revision No. 1165 of 2009 -2- **** that way, Fakiria sold 8 kanals area in excess of his share. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration qua the title acquired and also for the possession (by way of partition) of the land purchased by him. As an ad-interm measure, it also sought the restraint of the defendants-respondents from obtaining possession of the land purchased by the former. The learned Trial Court declined the plea, vide impugned order dated 23.12.2008 (Annexure P-2) on a finding that the plaintiff- petitioner had not been able to prove his exclusive possession over the land comprised in Khara No.20(4-0) and 21(4-0). The view obtained by the learned Trial Court was affirmed by the learned Ist Appellate Court which observed as under:- “5. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court speaking through Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma vide order dated 17.09.2008 has directed the Executing Court to proceed with the Execution Application moved by decree-holder Jasmer Singh for execution of warrant of possession. It has been observed by the Hon'ble High Court that the Objector having purchased the land during the pendency of litigation is bound by the earlier order. 6. In view of the aforesaid order dated 17.09.2008 passed by the Hon'ble High Court, no interim injunction, whatsoever, can be granted for execution of the warrant of possession issued earlier. This order dated 17.09.2008 passed by the Hon'ble High Court was not brought to the notice of this Court by the appellant Shri Balaji Rice Mill, appellant in this case, which is undesirable. The appellant being the party to the Civil Revision No. 1165 of 2009 -3- **** litigation in the Hon'ble High Court, vide which order dated 17.09.2008 has been issued, should have brought to the notice of this Court, the order dated 17.09.2008 passed by the Hon'ble High Court. Shri Balaji Rice Mill having purchased the land during the pendency of the litigation is bound by the earlier order passed by the Executing Court. The sale in favour of Shri Balaji Rice Mill was also hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act vide doctrine of lis pendense.” The plaintiff-petitioner is in revision. However, the learned Ist Appellate Court ordered that the suit itself shall be disposed of by the learned Trial Court within six months. It is argued on behalf the petitioner that the impugned order is invalid on the face of it inasmuch as the authorities in the context had themselves expressed a handicap in the execution of the warrant of possession on account of it being an unpartitioned land. In support of the plea aforementioned, learned counsel for the petitioner invites attention of this Court to report dated 10.2.2009 (Annexure P-5) which had been made by Qanungo requesting for providing of police help for execution of the warrant of possession. The above report does not corroborate the plea advocated on behalf of the petitioner. All that the Qanungo had indicated in the context thereof was the fact that there was a boundary wall on the site in dispute. He had only sought guidance from the Tehsildar about whether the possession was to be delivered by demolition of the wall or otherwise. The `guidance' sought thereby cannot be indicated to be a `handicap' in the execution of the warrant of possession issued by the learned Executing Court. Even otherwise, the revisional Court would obviously not be inclined/authorised to interfere (with the judicial discretion exercised by the Civil Revision No. 1165 of 2009 -4- **** learned Trial Court and the learned Ist Appellate Court) unless if it is found that the learned Trial Court and also the learned Ist Appellate Court had exercised discretion in injudicious or perverse manner. It is not so in the present case. The judicial discretion by the learned Trial Court and also learned Ist Appellate Court deserve affirmation and it is so ordered accordingly. March 20, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge