IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 287 of 2008 (O & M) Date of decision:- 11.08.2009. Buland Iqbal Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus Veena Vohra and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present:- Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A.S. Narang, Advocate for respondent Nos.1,3 to 6. A.N.JINDAL J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.11.2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohali whereby the objection petition, which was dismissed alongwith the execution, was ordered to be restored. This case relates to a mistake apparent on the face of record. In execution of the decree the objectors-respondents stated that decree was for 4 marlas out of khasra No.14/23/2/1(3-17), 24/1(0-9) but the court in pursuance of the warrant of possession delivered the possession of the whole of the land, which was against the spirit of the decree. Consequently, the execution was dismissed but objection petition was also dismissed without passing any order thereon. Ultimately, the executing court has now ordered restoration of the objection petition. Civil Revision No. 287 of 2008 -2- Arguments heard. Undisputedly, decree was passed on 22.02.1993 and it was for possession of four marlas. The warrant of possession was issued out of 4 Kanals 6 Marlas as referred to above. Since there was no demarcation of four marlas, therefore, the Revenue Officer delivered the possession of the entire land. The demarcation report dated 05.10.2002 and report of Tehsildar dated 03.12.2002 also substantiate the grievance of the respondents that the Tehsildar and Kanugo did not try to locate which portion of the land was delivered to the decree-holder-petitioners. As such the respondents were certainly to be heard before dismissing the objection petition so that they may not suffer on account of the wrong delivery of possession of the entire land instead of 4 marlas only, possession of which was required to be delivered to the petitioners. As regards the argument that the objection petition cannot be heard as the execution has already been dismissed on account of decree having become satisfied, it may be observed that it was obligatory on the part of the court to dispose of the objection petition before dismissing the execution. This proposition has been discussed by the Apex Court in judgment delivered in case M.P. Shreevastava v. Mrs. Veena AIR 1967, Supreme Court 1193 wherein it was clarified by His Lordships that application made by the judgment debtor, which raises a question relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree in a suit to which he or the person of whom he is representative, was a party, in an application before the court executing the decree and the pendency of the application for execution is not a condition of its exercise with powers to decide the application. Even otherwise this Civil Revision No. 287 of 2008 -3- court stands to correct the mistakes apparent on the face of the record, which occurred or had been committed by the court in the due course of duties. Particularly bonafide mistakes could be corrected by passing a specific order in that regard. Resultantly, I find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. 11.08. 2009 (A.N.JINDAL) vj JUDGE