CR No.2290 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2290 of 2009 Date of Decision: 29.07.2010 Geeta Ram …petitioner Versus Hari Ram and others .....Respondents 1.Whether Reporter of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment- Yes/No 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not- Yes/No 3. Whether judgment should be reported in the digest-Yes/No CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Malik, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 4. …... L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Geeta Ram-defendant No.3 has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 15.04.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division ), Safidon thereby dismissing objections filed by defendants No.3 and 17 to 19 in application for preparation of final decree which has been filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 4. Suit for partition of suit property filed by respondents No.1 to 4 against the petitioner and proforma respondents No.5 to 19 stands decreed vide judgment and decree dated 09.04.2004 (Annexure P-1) and thereby preliminary decree for partition has been CR No.2290 of 2009 2 passed. First appeal preferred against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 12.09.2007. Thereafter respondents No.1 to 4 herein moved application (Annexure P-2) in the trial Court for preparation of final decree. Defendants No.3 and 17 to 19 filed objection petition (Annexure P-3), which has been dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order (Annexure P4). It was alleged in the objection petitioner that Civil Writ Petition NO.8168 of 1987 has been filed in this Court regarding land of Khasra Nos.155 and 156 (being part of the suit land) and stay order dated 03.11.1987 has already been granted in the said writ petition and therefore, final decree cannot be passed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that against order dated 24.07.1985 passed by Additional Director Consolidation, Haryana, CWP NO.8168 of 1987 has been filed, which is still pending and therefore, final decree in the partition suit cannot be prepared. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 has opposed the aforesaid contention submitting that preliminary decree (Annexure P- 1) has attained finality and therefore, there is no obstacle in passing of the final decree. I have carefully considered the contentions raised by counsel for both the parties. In so far as CWP NO.8168 of 1987 is concerned, the same has been filed by Chatter Singh-defendant No.10 as confirmed by counsel for the petitioner. Since the said writ petition has not been filed by petitioner-defendant No.3 Geeta Ram, any objection on the basis of said writ petition cannot be entertained at the instance of the petitioner. In addition thereto, preliminary decree (Annexure P-1) has attained finality and therefore, proceedings for final decree cannot be stayed or dismissed merely because the CR No.2290 of 2009 3 aforesaid writ petition is pending. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. The impugned order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference in revision petition. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed. (L.N. MITTAL) JUDGE 29.07.2010 sharmila