C.R.No.6309 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6309 of 2005 Date of Decision:December 10, 2009 Des Raj and another ...........Petitioners Versus Mohan Singh ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Ms.Dimple Sangwan,Advocate for Mr.Arvind Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.C.B.Goel,Advocate for the respondents -- Sabina, J. Des Raj and Jarnail Singh filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 3.10.1997 against Mohan Singh. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 23.10.2003. Plaintiffs decree holders filed an execution petition. Petitioner Harbhajan Singh filed an objection petition in the execution proceedings. The said application was dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated 1.12.2004. In appeal, the Additional District Judge set aside the order dated 1.12.2004. It was ordered that the possession of the land qua 14 kanal 12 marlas be delivered out of the land which came to the share of Mohan Singh, Judgment Debtor in partition proceedings. As far as the remaining co-owners were concerned, whose land had been partitioned, they were not bound by the decree of specific C.R.No.6309 of 2005 2 performance of contract against Mohan Singh. Hence, the present revision petition by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were not the party to the partition proceedings. Mohan Singh and Harbhajan Singh, who were brothers had colluded with each other and had given land of inferior quality to Mohan Singh during partition proceedings. Hence, the impugned order was liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioners had also moved an application for being impleaded as a party in the partition proceedings. The said application was dismissed and the said order was never challenged by the petitioners. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition is devoid of any merit. Admittedly, the decree for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell in question qua 14 kanals 12 marlas of land was passed in favour of the petitioners. Partition proceedings started in February, 1998 after the execution of the agreement to sell in question. Sale deed was to be got executed upto August,1998 by Mohan Singh in view of the agreement to sell dated 3.10.1997. Petitioners also filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as a party in the partition proceedings. Their application was dismissed. They did not challenge the order of dismissal in the higher Court. Partition proceedings were completed in the year 2002 and separate areas were allotted to all the co-sharers. The decree in question was passed in the year 2003. In these circumstances, the learned Additional District Judge rightly ordered that the possession of the land agreed to be sold by judgment C.R.No.6309 of 2005 3 debtor- Mohan Singh was liable to be given to the plaintiff which had came to the share of Mohan Singh in partition proceedings. The other co-sharers were not bound by the specific performance of the contract against Mohan Singh. No interference is called for. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge December 10, 2009 arya