C. R. No. 2123 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2123 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 12, 2010 Satpal Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Daljit Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. P. K. S. Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Decree-holder Satpal Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 08.12.2009, passed by the Executing Court i.e. learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Talwandi Sabo, whereby execution petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as fully satisfied on delivery of symbolical possession of the suit land. Suit was filed by petitioner against respondents for possession of the suit land measuring 40 kanals, as described in the plaint, by specific performance of the agreement to sell. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 13.11.2007 (Annexure P-1), upheld in first and second appeal vide decree Annexure P-2 (of the first appellate court) and C. R. No. 2123 of 2010 2 judgment Annexure P-3 (of this Court in second appeal). Thereupon, petitioner filed execution petition. Respondents – judgment-debtors filed objections in the said execution petition. Learned Executing Court, vide order dated 02.09.2009 (Annexure P-4), partly allowed the said objections and held that the decree-holder is not entitled to physical possession of specific khasra numbers, as mentioned in the sale deed executed pursuant to decree and accordingly, warrant of symbolical possession of the suit land was ordered to be issued in favour of decree-holder. Pursuant thereto, symbolical possession of the suit land was delivered to the decree-holder and accordingly, Executing Court, vide impugned order dated 08.12.2009, held that the decree stood fully satisfied. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner – decree-holder is entitled to actual physical possession of the suit land measuring 40 kanals because the same was in actual physical possession of the judgment-debtors out of the joint land. In support of this contention, it has been asserted by counsel for the petitioner that during pendency of the suit for specific performance of the agreement filed by the petitioner, respondents had filed a suit against the petitioner alleging therein that they were owners in possession of the suit land measuring 40 kanals and therefore, in execution of decree Annexure P-1, the petitioner is entitled to actual physical possession of the suit land measuring 40 kanals. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no force therein. C. R. No. 2123 of 2010 3 As noticed herein above, learned Executing Court, vide order dated 02.09.2009 (Annexure P-4), decided the objections filed by respondents and specifically held therein that decree-holder is not entitled to physical possession of specific khasra numbers of the suit land and accordingly, warrant of symbolical possession only was ordered to be issued in favour of decree-holder. Admittedly, symbolical possession of the suit land has since been delivered to decree-holder. Order dated 02.09.2009 has not been challenged by decree-holder. Consequently, in view of the said order, decree-holder – petitioner cannot claim that he is entitled to physical possession of the suit land. Vide order dated 02.09.2009 (Annexure P-4), the Executing Court adjudicated upon the objections filed by the respondents – judgment-debtors and specifically held that the petitioner – decree-holder is not entitled to physical possession of the specific khasra numbers of the suit land. In view thereof, the petitioner was rightly delivered symbolical possession only of the suit land and was not delivered physical possession. There is no infirmity much less illegality in the impugned order dated 08.12.2009 of the Executing Court in view of earlier order dated 02.09.2009 (Annexure P-4). Consequently, there is no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. July 12, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE