Civil Revision No.16/2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.16/2011 Date of decision:4.1.2011 Ram Sarup .............Petitioner v Baljit Singh and others ..............Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr.Vikrant Hooda,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh,J. Petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27.9.2010 passed by the learned Executing Court, whereby the objections filed by the Objectors/respondents were allowed. Briefly noticed, petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction to the effect that he was owner in possession of house constructed on a plot bearing no.159 measuring 10 marlas comprised in Khasra No.142/132,khatauni no.191 situated within the revenue estate of village Sarai Aurangabad and defendants/respondents were creating obstacles in the usage of the same without any cause. On 19.1.2008, the said suit was put up before Rural Lok Adalat where the matter was Civil Revision No.16/2011 -2- settled on the joint statement made by the defendants and Sarpanch of the Village to the effect that they would not encroach upon any portionof Gali No.160 as shown in aks shizra (Ex.CI) and Ex.C2. It was further admitted that the measurements shown in Ex.C1 and C2 were correct. In view of the joint statement made by defendants/Sarpanch of the Village the petitioner/plaintiff made statement that he did not want to proceed further and accordingly his suit was dismissed as withdrawn by the Rural Lok Adalat vide order dated 19.1.2008 Thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff/Decree Holder filed an Execution Petition before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahadurgarh. Defendants /Judgment Debtors filed objections, to the said execution petition, inter alia, alleging therein that the order dated 19.1.2008 passed by the Rural Lok Adalat was not a decree, (ii) the petitioner had not filed any certified copy of the decree and (iii) the execution filed by the petitioner in the present form was not maintainable. It was further alleged that even if the order dated 19.1.2008 passed by Rural Lok Adalat was considered as a decree that too already stood executed at the site because the rasta bearing no.160 was already having width of two karams i.e. 11 feet and the length of which was four karams i.e. 22 feet and there was no encroachment on the gali/rasta. It was next alleged that petitioner under the garb of execution of order dated 19.1.2008 wanted to extend the length of street/rasta upto 44 feet instead of existing length of 22 feet which was Civil Revision No.16/2011 -3- against the contents of the statement of the objectors/respondents/JDs. In reply to the objections, it was the case of the petitioner that the Ex.C1 and Ex.C2, which were admitted by both sides, bore the signatures of Presiding Officer where the length of the street was already 44 feet. The learned Executing Court after hearing both sides observed that as per revenue documents (jamabandi for the year 1959- 60, jamabandi for the year 2001-02, field book, aks sizra) placed on the case file by the JDs the area of the rasta comprised in khasra no.160 has been shown as 0 kanal 1 marla i.e. 4 karam x 2 karam. Attaching presumption of truth to the revenue record, the learned Executing Court rejected the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that the rasta comprised in khasra no.160 is 8 karam x 4 karam. It was further noticed by the learned Executing Court that in all the revenue records the area of khasra no.160 has been shown as 4 karams x 2 karams. Accordingly, it was held by the learned Executing Court that merely on the basis of document Ex.C1 attached with the original case file, it could neither be presumed nor held that the area of the rasta comprised in khasra no.160 is 8 karams x 4 karams. In my opinion, the learned Executing Court has rightly accepted the contention of the learned counsel for JDs that admission made before the Rural Lok Adalat regarding document Ex.C1 was erroneous, which stood sufficiently explained and as such an erroneous admission could not be acted upon. The learned Executing Court has further rightly held that Civil Revision No.16/2011 -4- the suit of the petitioner/planitiff was dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of statements made by the parties and as such no executable decree or order was ever passed in favour of the decree holder. For the reasons noticed above, I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order which may call for interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. 4.1.2011. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge