C.R.No.4277 of 2007(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4277 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 17, 2009 Subhash Chand ...........Petitioner Versus Satish Chander and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Lokesh Sinhal,Advocate for the respondents. -- Sabina, J. This revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 14.8.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Faridabad (Annexure P6) dismissing the objections of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the Regular Second Appeal, the decree holder had given up all the respondents except Ajay Kumar at his own risk and responsibility. In these C.R.No.4277 of 2007(O&M) 2 circumstances, the decree could not be sought to be executed qua the petitioner who had been given up by the decree holder. Learned counsel for the respondents-decree holders, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner had no concern with the suit property. Petitioner was not a co-sharer in the suit property. Petitioner was merely claiming possession through Ajay Kuamr, Judgment debtor and, hence, the decree was liable to be executed qua the petitioner also. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be dismissed. Admittedly, Satish Chander, respondent No.1 had filed a suit for possession of the shop in dispute against Ram Avtar, father of the Objector-Subhash Chander, Ajay Kumar and others. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.1978. In appeal, the suit filed by respondent No.1 was partly decreed by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 17.10.1984 and decree for possession if 10/11th share was passed in favour of respondent No.1- Satish Chander and defendants No. 5 to 13 in the said suit in equal shares. The decree was passed against defendants No. 1 to 4 ie. Ram Avtar through his legal representatives i.e. Jai Parkash, Subhash Chander(present petitioner) Gopal Dass, Maya Devi, Ajay Kumar (defendant No.2) Om Parkash (defendant No.3) Bishamber Dayal (defendant No.4). Thus, the present petitioner was a party in the earlier litigation and decree was passed against him being successor of defendant No.1-Ram Avtar. In execution of the said decree,a symbolic possession of 10/11th share was delivered to respondent No.1 Satish Chander. Thus, Satish Chander alongwith defendants No. 5 to 13 in the said suit had became owner in joint possession to the extent of C.R.No.4277 of 2007(O&M) 3 10/11th share. Thereafter, respondent No.1 and other had filed a suit for actual physical possession of plot measuring 13'x10'x60'. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 14.6.1997. In appeal the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 13.10.1998. In Regular Second Appeal bearing No.1801 of 1999 against the judgment and decree dated 13.10.1998 the following order was passed on 24.1.2005:- “The appellant gives up all the respondents except Ajay Kumar at his own risk and responsibility and states that Ajay Kumar does not contest the suit. This fact is confirmed by Ajay Kumar who is present in court with his counsel. In view of this statement, suit against Ajay Kumar will be treated to have been decreed. The appeal disposed of accordingly.” The contention of the petitioner that the decree was not executable against him because he had been given up by respondent No.1 in the Regular Second Appeal has no force as the earlier decree dated 17.10.1984 was passed against the petitioner. In the said decree, the petitioner was impleaded as legal representative of defendant No.1 Ram Avtar. It was held that Ram Avtar had no share in the suit property. Rather respondent No.1 was held to be owner of 10/11th share in the suit property and decree for possession was passed in his favour. So far as Ajay Kumar- defendant No.2 in the suit was concerned, he was held to be a bona fide purchaser for consideration and his share was determined to the extent of 1/11th share. So far as Ajay Kumar is concerned, he admitted that he had transferred his share to his neighbours who had taken possession of his share. The learned Executing Court, thus, rightly held that the petitioner C.R.No.4277 of 2007(O&M) 4 Subhash Chander had no share in the suit property and consequently, had no right to remain in possession of the suit property. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge December 17 , 2009 arya