CR No.1210 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1210 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 14.5.2010 Labh Kaur & ors. ......Petitioner(s) Versus Gursewak Singh & ors. ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.4611 & 4612-CII of 2010 Applications are allowed subject to all just exceptions. CR No.1210 of 2010(O&M) The petitioners have filed this revision petition challenging the impugned orders dated 3.9.2007 and 25.2.2009 passed by the Courts below whereby their application filed under Section 144/151 CPC for restoration of possession of land in dispute was rejected. As per averments made in this petition, execution application No.57 of 6.5.1993 was decided on 4.3.1994 whereby warrants of possession regarding land in dispute was issued by the Court. The Field Kanungo and Patwari Halqa along with Gursewak Singh-decree-holder had visited the spot in connection with the execution of warrants of possession. The value of the crop standing on the land in dispute, which was being cultivated by the appellants, was assessed and the respondents were required to deposit an amount of Rs.24,350/- before the execution of the warrants of possession. However, the respondent-decree-holder obtained the possession without depositing the aforesaid amount in CR No.1210 of 2010(O&M) 2 question. Since they failed to deposit the aforesaid amount, the petitioners were entitled to restoration of the suit property. It was further alleged by the petitioners that Mewa Singh-petitioner was confined in Jail from 1994 till June 2001 in a false case registered against him under Section 302 IPC. On his acquittal, he came to know about the proceedings regarding delivery of possession and as such, the present application for restoration was filed. Pursuant to the receipt of the notice, respondent No.1 filed reply stating therein that after the delivery of the possession of the land in dispute to the decree-holder, Mewa Singh etc. had filed Civil Revision No.1516 of 1994 before this Court where the judgment-debtors had given an undertaking to this Court that they will not interfere in the possession of the decree-holders in case they were allowed to cut and remove the standing crops on the land in dispute. This Court vide order dated 2.5.1994 passed the orders, and the judgment-debtors had cut and removed the crops from the land in dispute and thus, in view of the aforesaid orders, the assessment of compensation of the standing crops by the Field Kanungo as aforesaid became meaningless. Since the crop was cut and removed by the judgment-debtors, no question of payment of any compensation regarding crop standing on the land in dispute to the judgment-debtors arises. This Court vide order dated 11.5.1994 also initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the judgment-debtors. Moreover, in the contempt proceedings, judgment-debtors tendered a written apology and ultimately the contempt proceedings were dropped by this Court on 13.7.1995. Thus, it was alleged that there was no ground for restoration of the possession of the land in dispute to the appellants and dismissal of the aforesaid application was sought. Respondents No.5, 7 to 10 also filed their separate replies CR No.1210 of 2010(O&M) 3 almost on the same lines. After hearing the arguments, the trial Court came to the conclusion that there was no ground for restoration of the land in dispute and consequently, the application was dismissed. The appeal filed by the appellants before the Additional District Judge, Sangrur against the aforesaid order of the trial Court was also dismissed holding the same as false and frivolous. Still not satisfied, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the instant revision petition challenging the aforesaid orders. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned orders and other documents attached with this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to dispute the factum of the order dated 2.5.1994 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.1516 of 1994 wherein the petitioners were allowed to cut and remove the standing crop on the land. Learned counsel for the petitioners also could not dispute the factum that in contempt proceedings before this Court, the petitioners-judgment-debtors had tendered a written apology. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court does not find any fault with the impugned orders. No merits. Dismissed. May 14, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE