COCP No.717 of 2006 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.717 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.9.2009 Om Parkash ......Petitioner(s) Versus Jagrup & ors. ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate with petitioner. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Advocate for respondent No.1. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.11471-CII of 2006 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. COCP No.717 of 2006 As per the averments made in this petition, respondent No.1 filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 30.11.1994 against the petitioner and one Smt.Jiwani for directing defendant No.1 for executing the sale deed and restraining the petitioner/defendant No.2 from alienating the property on the basis of the collusive decree dated 22.7.1995. The aforesaid suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 3.12.2002 as under: “As per my finding while deciding the above mentioned issues, when it is duly proved by the plaintiff that defendant No.1 has entered into agreement with the plaintiff for sale of 8 kanals land as described in para No.1 of the plaint, therefore, plaintiff is entitled for decree COCP No.717 of 2006 (O&M) 2 of specific performance of a contract and defendant No.1 is directed to execute the sale deed within a period of 30 days from the order of this Court and take remaining amount from the plaintiff, if defendant No.1 does not execute the sale deed within a period of 30 days, plaintiff has every right to get sale deed executed through court subject to the condition that plaintiff pay the ad valorem court fees within a period of 10 days on an amount of Rs.85,000/- in the court. Hence, with this condition suit of the plaintiff is decreed. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance. Announced in open court. Dated 03.12.02 Sd/- Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Charkhi Dadri.” The aforesaid decree was executed and conveyance deed was registered in favour of decree holder and the execution petition was dismissed as fully satisfied vide order dated 24.1.2005. Order dated 24.1.2005 is reproduced hereunder:-. “Report of L.C perused and as per report of L.C. He got executed the sale deed in favour of D.H. Ld. Counsel for D.H has made a statement to the effect that since sale deed has been executed, therefore, he does not want to proceed with the instant execution and the same be dismissed being fully satisfied. In view of the statement made by ld. Counsel for the D.H., execution petition is dismissed being fully satisfied. File be consigned to the record room. COCP No.717 of 2006 (O&M) 3 Announced in open court. Dated 24.1.2005 Sd/- K.P. Singh C.J (Jr. Division)Ch. Dadri.” It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 filed another execution application seeking possession of specific khasra No.167/21, to which the petitioner filed objections submitting that the decree-holder cannot take possession of specific portion in a decree of symbolic possession. However, the aforesaid objections were rejected by the Executing Court vide order dated 5.12.2005 and therefore, the petitioner filed Civil Revision No.6837 of 2005 before this Court and vide order dated 22.12.2005, this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo till further orders. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 executed the sale deed on 27.2.2006 in favour of respondent No.2 through respondent No.3 and thus, in spite of the status quo order granted by this Court in Civil Revision No.6837 of 2005, respondent No.1 transferred the land and thus, committed contempt of this Court. In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, affidavit of respondent No.1 was filed submitting therein that he was delivered possession by the Executing Court by issuing warrants of possession vide order dated 21.11.2005 (Annexure R/1) and the aforesaid warrants of possession were executed on 4.12.2005 vide order Annexure R-1/2 and as such there was no disobedience on the part of the respondents as they have got possession through the process of Court. There is no rejoinder to the facts as submitted by respondent No.1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that COCP No.717 of 2006 (O&M) 4 the decree itself was for symbolic possession and therefore, it was not open to the Executing Court to have issued warrant of possession for any specified area. Remedy with the decree holder is to get possession by way of suit for partition and not by moving an application before the Executing Court. Thus, the petitioner could not have sold the specific khasra number vide sale deed dated 27.2.2006 and is liable to be punished. The learned counsel has also relied upon judgment dated 21.8.2008 passed in Civil Revision No.6837 of 2005 whereby the order dated 5.12.2005 dismissing the objections, was set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the conveyance deed was executed in favour of respondent No.1 in execution of the decree and therefore, being owner he was competent to sell the same. Moreover, the status quo order was in a petition in which the only question raised was with regard to possession of specific area and therefore, status quo order can be only interpreted to say that status quo was with regard to possession and it is not the case of the petitioner that the respondents have disturbed the possession of parties. Undisputedly,in pursuance of the decree dated 3.12.2002 conveyance deed was executed in favour of respondent No.1 and he had become the owner of the same. The petitioner has also admitted the status of respondent No.1 as a co-sharer in the property in dispute. From the perusal of the facts as mentioned in this petition, it is crystal clear that the dispute before this Court in CR No.6837 of 2005 was only with regard to possession of specific khasra numbers and the petitioner was aggrieved against the order of the Executing Court whereby his objection that the decree-holder cannot take possession of specific khasra numbers by way of execution of decree, was rejected. Thus, the status quo order passed by this Court in the Civil Revision passed by this Court on 22.12.2005 COCP No.717 of 2006 (O&M) 5 directing the parties to maintain status quo was only with regard to possession of the land in dispute as the petitioner was aggrieved only against the issuance of warrant of possession in favour of respondent No.1. Even otherwise in the reply the stand taken by the respondents is that he got the possession of the property in dispute in pursuance of the warrants of possession issued vide order dated 21.11.2005. The aforesaid fact has not been controverted by the petitioner. If any right to the petitioner enures from judgment dated 21.8.2008 he is at liberty to seek the same in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of view that no contempt is made out. Rule discharged. September 18, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE