C.R. No. 4203 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4203 of 2008 Date of decision:- 27.10.2009 Khattu Ram petitioner vs Charan Dass and another Respondents Present: Mr. RS Longia, Advocate. Mr. Arvind Bansal, Advocate Mr. AP Bhandari, Advocate 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner is judgment-debtor in a suit for specific performance, which has been decreed in favour of defendant No.1. The said order has attained finality and has to be given full effect. The petitioner was impleaded as defendant No.2 as he had purchased the property, which was the subject matter of the suit for specific performance vide sale deed dated 1.6.1998 to the extent of 4 kanals, out of the suit land agreed to be sold to the plaintiff-respondent No.1 decree holder. During the course of execution proceedings, the petitioner apprehending that while delivering the actual physical possession of the suit land, which was subject matter of the decree, the physical possession C.R. No. 4203 of 2008 2 of his house will also be taken by the decree holder, filed Civil Revision No. 6733 of 2007 and notice of motion was issued. Respondent No.1 decree holder appeared through counsel and made a statement at the bar that while executing the decree, the possession of the house shall not be taken and ingress and egress to the house shall also not be obstructed, as such the order passed by the executing court was modified on the basis of the statement of the counsel for the decree holder. The executing court has now issued warrant of possession of land measuring 6 kanals 4 Marlas comprised in Rect. No.17/6/2 (3-12) and Rect. No. 18/1/2/2/ (2-12) vide order dated 21.5.2008. The petitioner has again approached this court saying that the order, earlier passed on the basis of the statement of counsel for respondent No.1, is being violated and possession of his house is being taken. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the petitioner wants to delay the execution proceedings and that no house of the petitioner exists on the property in dispute but he has constructed a cattle shed and surrounded it by a kuchha wall to defeat the rights of the decree holder. Photographs of the construction of the cattle shed, constructed by the petitioner, have been placed on the record. I am satisfied that the petitioner wants to evade the execution of the decree in the garb of the statement made by the counsel for the decree holder that the possession of the petitioner's house shall not be taken. The disputed questions of fact cannot be decided by this court. As per Order 21 Rule 101 CPC, all questions relating to right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties to the proceedings in execution are to be determined by the executing court. The executing court is directed to give full effect to C.R. No. 4203 of 2008 3 the decree passed against the petitioner judgment-debtor and also to ensure that the actual physical possession of the petitioner's house is saved, as per the earlier directions of this court dated 26.2.2008. The entire exercise will be done by the executing court within a period of two months after the receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that the inquiry will be summary in nature and in case the executing court is of the opinion that the construction, sought to be protected by the petitioner, is not his residence, it will be open to the executing court to issue directions for delivery of the possession of the structures, if any, existing on the land, which forms part of the decree. The parties are directed to appear before the executing court on 7.11.2009. The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms. October 27 ,2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) TSM JUDGE