420 1 1 7Civil Revision No2962 of 2010 1 IN THE HlGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision Noe2962 of 2010 1 Date of e 5a2010 C MahenderSingh 0 C I Petitioner C5 versus I Z Hari Singhand others Respondents I 08 Present Mr SRHooda Advocate for the petitionere Mr Harish BhardwajAdvocate for the respondent 7 Noels Z Qm CORAM 2 HONBLE MRJUSTICE KCPURL ICCPURL Je This is a revision petitionunder Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia flled by the petitioner prayingfor settingaside impugnedorder dated 10A2010 64nnexurcPe171assed by Civil Judgc Senior DivisionlSonepatwherebythe ExecutingCourt has dismissed the second objections64nnexureP59 raised by the petitioner wherebythe order dated 4121009 passedby this Court in Civil Rawat Seema 2013.01.11 11: 44 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 421 1 v CiviI Revision No2962 of 2010 2 Revision Noe6967 of 2009 to the extent that Ogure17 sq yard mentioned in order dated 4e1202009shall be read as 70 sq yard being arbitrary unfair illegalpassedwithout consideringthe evidence on record and without framingissuesin the interest ofjusticee 1 1 It is pleadedIn the objectionpetitionthat objectorNo2 0 Prem Singhhad purchased116 share of 113 share out of 14912mon C I South 2 kanals 0 marlas and of 10714of 2 kanals 4 marlas from one C9 Sarupa vide registeredsale deed dated 7e601977and he had also I purchased119 share out of 10713181and 1491071 measuring3 Z kanals 3 marlas situated in the revenue estate of Village Kami from Smt RajaKumari widow of Mohinder Singhson ofDeepChand and I SmteMam Kaur widow ofDeepChand vide registered sale deed dated 08 D 110501977 and constructed a residential house thereone Thereafter he W2 alongwithMohinder Singh8bjectorNoel also purchased1 marlas of Z Iand ie 1178share out of Iand measuring 3 kanals 18 marlas comprised Ll in khewat noe135 khata Noe 198 recte And killa Noe 149 3181in equal shares from SmteDhapowidow of Ranbir Jaibir Satish sons of Zile Singhson of JugIal In equal shares vide registeredsale decd dated 101e2006for a sum of Rs180001 and as such the objectorNo2 has become cosharer in plot Noe 149 possessionof part of which is sought to be taken by way ofexecution ofthe impugned decree dated 23202005 and the objectorNo2 has flled the objections which were dismissed vide order dated 10101009 by this Court and Mohinder son of Sube Singh had challenged the same before this Court vide CR Noe 6967 of 2009 In Rawat Seema 2013.01.11 11: 44 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 422 Eivil Revision Nol962 of 2010 3 1 which he was giventhe libertyto Ole fresh objectionsbefore the executing courte Plot Noe 149 is still jointof the partiesand continues to bear the same number in the revenue record till date while the decrce holder has flled the civil suit showingthe suit propertyas Killa NOe 1 L 14914 killa Noe 14914has been bifurcated in some partitionproceedings 0 carvingout separatepartsbut the aIlegedpartitionwas never given C I effect in the revenue records and as such the partitionproceedingshave C5 become useless Thus objectorPrem Singhwho was not party in the I civil suit and Mohinder SinghJD has become the cosharer in the suit Z propertyand thus the warrant of possessionhas become incapableof execution becausethe onlyway to getpossessionis byway of partition Decree holder has resisted these by OIingreply and 08 aliegingtherein by way of preIiminaryobjectionsthat the objections mwo are not maintainabIe and the objectorshave no Iocus standi to Ole the Z same and that the objections are abuse of process of Iaw On merits it is allegedthat the pIeastaken by the objectorln the objectionpetitionwere also taken by the objectorNo2 in his separateobjectionpetitionearlier flled by him which has bcen decided by this Court vide order dated 109e20090No revISion petitionwas flled by Prem SinghObjectorNo2 and as such he has not been givenIiberty to file the fresh objectionpetitionagain before the court Prem Singh was not a party to the suit as he was not havingany interest in the suit land at the time of passingof the decree and even at the time ofOIingof the execution petitionePrem Singhhas not constructed anyhouse in the Rawat Seema 2013.01.11 11: 44 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 423 e 1 1 tivil Revision Noe2962 of 2010 4 J e propertyin disputeeMohinder Singhwas found in unauthorized in the Iand in question as per decree dated 2322005 and as such the allegedsale deeds Ill favour of Prem Sirighare of no and did not confer any right to Prem SingheThe 1 0 objections raised by Mohinder Singhregardingthe land purchasedby him vide sale decds dated 7601977and 11501977have been adjudicated C by this Court and the same have been dismissed vide order dated I C5 101002009 on meritse The plot Noe 149 had alreadybeen partitioned I vide Sannad Taksim dated 161964 and lll the Iightof which the suit Z was flIed by the decree holder and was accordinglycontested by C judgmentdebtor objectedMohinder Singhtill the decision of the I appeal by the court of learned Additional District Judge Even 08 otherwise Prem singhobjectorNol has himself admitted the partition 7 of the plotNo 149 and as per his own averments he had purchased the Z share of plot Noe 14912rnin South and had also purchasedthe share of Qm plot Noe 14911vide two separatesale deedseThe non incorporation of the partitionof pIotNoe 149 in the revenue record has not bearingon the rightsof the decree holdere The learned trial Court after hearingthe Iearned counsel for the parties dismissed the objectionsas frivolous vexatious and intended to delaythe execution of the decree and the same need not be put to trial by framingissues as the same would amount to an abuse of the process of the Courte Feeling dissatisOed with the above said orders the Rawat Seema 2013.01.11 11: 44 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 424 4Civil Revision No2962 of 2010 5 has flled the instant revision petition I have heard Iearned counsel for the parties and have minutelygone throughthe records ofthe case with their help The Iearned counsel for the petitionethas submitted that 1 Q decree of possession waS lll favour ofHari SinghpIaintiffand in favour 0 of Lachhman Singh Zile Singhhis brothers who were proforma C in the suit for The objectorhas purchasedthe I C5 share of Iegalrepresentatives of Zile Singhthroughsale deed ExeP40 I This sale deed was in favour of Prem Singhand the presentpetitionin Z equalshare and is in respectof 1 marla ie 1178share of kiIla No9 Out of the same khasra number the other legalheir of Zile I Singhhave executed sale deed ExePS in respectof 1 marIa 1eee 30 08 4 square yard which is 1138 share of 3 kanals 18 marlas of Iand out of Ym Recte kiIIa N001490AgainLachhman Singh has sold 2 marlas of Iand Z equalto 70 square yardswhich is 2178share of Iand measuring 3 kanals 18 marlas of Rect and Khasra So Ill this manner the objectorhas become owner of 3Iz marlas of Iand out of Recte Killa Noe1490481 and no mln number is allotted So the prayer has been made for acceptanceof reVlSlOn petitionand for stTing the possession of the suit lande Learned counsel for the has supportedthe judgmentofthe trial Court I have givenmy thoughtfulconsideration to the rival submissions made by both the sides and have gone throughthe records Rawat Seema 2013.01.11 11: 44 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 425 1 Civil Revision Nol962 of 2010 e 6 of the casee From the perusalof the judgmentof Civil Judge Senior Divisionldated 232005 it is revealed that similar objectionsthat Khasra is not mentioned in the revenue ecord was taken 1 and that objection was repelledbythe Civil JudgeSeniorDivisionlvide 0 said judgmenteThe objectorflled appealagainstthe said judgment C I dated 23022005 and Iearned District Judgevide judgmentdated C I 1582005 dismissedthe appealeAgainnot acceptingthe objectionthat Killa No1491471does not existe The Court has held that Z t since the petitionerhas not purchasedany part ofKhasra and on that accountthe sale deeds ExseP4 to P do notconfer any I Iegalrightin respectof khasra N0149114171 08 One another circumstance which militatesagainstthe case VA7 of the is that there is a recital in the sale deed Exs Z P4 P5 and Pe6 that possessionhas been delivered throughthose sale of Khasra No1493181 However from the perusalof the judgmentdated 23022005passedby Civil Judge Senior Divisionland dated 1582005 passedby Iearned District Judge Sonepatit IS revealed that possessionof Khasra was alreadywith objectoletitionere So the Ondingof the ExecutingCourt that no part of Khasra No491471 has been purchasedby the plaintiff carnes weight and does not call for any interference and eonsequentlythe reVlSlOn petitionis without any merit and the same stands dismissed Rawat Seema 2013.01.11 11: 44 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 426 Civil Revision Noe2962 of 2010 7 A copy of this judgmentbe sent to the trial Court for strict 1 JUDGE May2742010 Sv Q 17925 rr 0 C 0nr I C5 Cpp Z Q 1r I 08 7 Z Om Rawat Seema 2013.01.11 11: 44 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document