IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6408 of 2008 Date of decision:25.02.2009 Gurcharan Singh ...Petitioner versus Baldev Krishan ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate with Mr. Akash Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate for the respondent. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The Decree holder who obtained decree for 1/4th share in residential house in a suit for specific performance had obtained the sale deed in pursuance of the decree. When it was put in execution the bailiff had purported to have delivered possession of 1/4th share. Objection was taken by the judgment debtor that the decree holder was in possession of the larger share and while he had merely right to a symbolic possession, he had taken of the possession of the whole property. Under the circumstances, the Executing Court directed an affidavit be filed by the decree holder that he had not taken possession of the whole house but that he had taken possession only of 1/4th share. Finding that the affidavit as directed had not been produced before Court, the Executing Court passed an order on 10.1.2008 impugned in this revision petition that affidavit had not been furnished as directed and Civil Revision No.6408 of 2008 - 2 - that the decree holder shall hand over back the possession of the house before 15.11.2008. 2. At the revision when the matter had come up for admission, this Court had passed an order on 20.11.2008, while ordering notice of motion that the decree holder shall furnish an affidavit that he taken possession of 1/4th share and not the entire house. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has produced before me a copy of the affidavit purported to have been filed before the Executing Court as per the direction of this Court. He has averred in the affidavit that as per the order of the Court dated 16.09.2008, the bailiff had delivered the possession of the 1/4th share of the house in door No.6132 with police help on 24.09.2008. It is stated that the judgment debtor himself has holding possession of 1/4th share in the residential house and that the remaining portion of the property was in the possession of the co-sharers namely brothers of judgment debtor Baldev Krishan. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the decree itself does not contemplate symbolic possession and even the judgment refers to the grant of relief to the plaintiff to the extent of 1/4th share in consonance with the agreement dated 16.06.1990 and to deliver joint possession to the plaintiff to the extent of 1/4th share. The remedy for joint possession is an extra-ordinary relief, but so long as the direction has not been set aside, the decree holder is entitled to obtain such joint possession in the manner contemplated under the decree and judgment. Civil Revision No.6408 of 2008 - 3 - 5. The contention of revision petitioner is that an objection regarding delivery of possession of 1/4th share cannot be taken by the judgment debtor for the Civil Procedure Code itself contemplates strict procedure under Order 21 Rule 98 if the judgment debtor objects delivery of possession. It is significant, according to him that the objection has not come from any other co-sharers that the decree holder has been allowed to be in possession of a larger share than he was entitled to. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent states that the judgment debtor is an old person and taking advantage of his old age, the decree holder was attempting to wrest possession of the entire extent property. I cannot give any help for the judgment debtor except to state that if the whole property is taken away from him or the delivery has been made in excess of 1/4th share, he shall have an independent remedy under Section 47 where he can seek for appointment of a Commissioner to identify the property that would fall within the 1/4th share or apply for any other legal process that can protect the possession of the remaining ¾ share which he claims that he is in possession of, on behalf of the other co-sharers. 7. The order already passed by the Executing Court directing release of the property to the judgment debtor is set aside and the revision is allowed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 25.02.2009 sanjeev