C.R. No.2625 of 2011 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.2625 of 2011 (O & M) Date of decision: 08.12.2011 Mohinder Singh .... Petitioner Versus Ram Phal and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Pankaj Midha, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S. Saneta, Advocate, for the respondents. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.: (Oral) The decree holder-plaintiff-petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 22nd December, 2010 passed by the Executing Court whereby the application filed for execution of the decree dated 6th November, 2003 passed in civil suit No.21/1 of 2000, has been dismissed. 2. Briefly the facts may be noticed. The plaintiff-decree holder filed a civil suit in the year 2000 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from interfering in his peaceful possession over a plot, as shown in the heading of the C.R. No.2625 of 2011 (O & M) ::2:: plaint, falling in Khasra No.74/6 measuring 100 Sq. Yds. The said suit was decreed on 6th November, 2003. The defendants-judgment debtors allegedly started interfering in the possession of the plaintiff- decree holder which led him to file the execution petition. 3. During the course of execution proceedings, Tehsildar Israna was appointed as Local Commissioner to inspect the spot relating to Khasra No.74/6. The report dated 25th September, 2006 filed by the Tehsildar, Israna has been annexed as Annexure P-4. A perusal of the same shows that the Local Commissioner had recorded that at the spot in Khasra No.74/6, after placing bricks a street was found to have been made and on the remaining area of Khasra No.74/6, after constructing four walls, the same was found to be in possession of Ram Phal son of Aphla, Brij Pal alias Birju son of Pamphal, Rishi Pal alias Rishi son of Ram Phal, Meshi son of Ram Phal. However, the said report was not accepted as the Local Commissioner had carried out the inspection by taking two 'pucca' points, whereas as per Rules three 'pucca' points were required for the purposes of demarcation and, therefore, execution application was rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the decree holder-petitioner/plaintiff submitted that the report of the Local Commissioner dated 25th September, 2006 was in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff and on that basis, the execution proceedings could not have been dismissed. It was further submitted that even if the report of the Local Commissioner had been rejected by the Executing Court, on the ground that the same was not as per Rules as the Local Commissioner had not taken three 'pucca' points, the proper course C.R. No.2625 of 2011 (O & M) ::3:: for the executing court was to have obtained a fresh report after complying with the provisions in accordance with law. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Executing Court rejecting the execution petition be set aside. 5. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter and perusing the file, I find that the Executing Court rejected the report of the Local Commissioner for want of three 'pucca' points. In such a situation, the justified course available to the Executing Court was to seek a fresh report of the Local Commissioner regarding demarcation of the land comprised in Khasra No.74/6 and, thereafter, to examine whether the possession of the decree-holder was disturbed by the respondents or not. 6. Accordingly, the order dated 22.12.2010 is set aside and the present petition stands disposed of with a direction to the Executing Court to seek a fresh report from the Local Commissioner, and adjudicate the matter in accordance with law. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE December 08, 2011 sukhpreet C.R. No.2625 of 2011 (O & M) ::4::