Civil Revision No. 6038 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OR PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Misc. Nos. 24449-50-CII of 2009 & Civil Revision No. 6038 of 2009 Date of decision:18th November, 2009 Ramesh Kumar and others ........Petitioners Versus Jeet Lal and others ........Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. R.S.Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harinder Arora, Advocate for the respondents. Rajive Bhalla, J.(Oral) Civil Misc. No.24449-CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. Civil Misc. No.24450-CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. Annexures P1 to P-5 are taken on record. Civil Revision No. 6038 of 2009 The petitioners challenge an order dated 5.10.2009, passed by the Executing Court, dismissing their objections. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 filed a suit for possession of land, measuring 1 kanal 2 marlas bearing khasra no. 21/16/3 situated in village Garha, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. The petitioners herein, opposed the suit by asserting Civil Revision No. 6038 of 2009 -2- that they had purchased the suit land. The trial court dismissed the suit but the first appellate court decreed the suit for possession of 7 marlas of land. The appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed. In execution proceedings possession of 2 marlas, was delivered to the decree holder. The decree holders, thereafter, applied for warrants of possession of 5 marlas of land. The petitioners filed objections, offering the decree holder a choice of two other properties, depicted in the site plans Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-3. The executing court, however, dismissed the objections. Counsel for the petitioners submits that as the decree does not identify the land by boundaries or measurement, the executing court could not issue warrants of possession with respect to the land in the petitioners possession. It is further prayed that in case respondents no. 1 to 3 are ready to choose from the land depicted in Annexures P-2 and P-3, the petitioners would ensure transfer of a valid, unencumbered title to them. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits, that they are not interested in the offer made by the petitioners and therefore, possession be delivered as decreed in the decree under execution. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the order passed by the executing court and find no reason to interfere. Admittedly, the decree under execution has attained Civil Revision No. 6038 of 2009 -3- finality. The petitioners offer for possession and ownership of alternative land has been rejected by the respondents. As the petitioners have not raised any other objection to the execution of the decree, the revision petition lacks merit and is dismissed. However, before proceeding to issue warrants of possession, the executing court shall satisfy itself that warrants are issued in accordance with the decree. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 18th November, 2009 Shivani Kaushik