C. R. No. 6552 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 6552 of 2008 Date of Decision : April 19, 2010 Bhag Singh (since deceased and now represented through LRs) .... Petitioner Vs. Boota Singh and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. K. S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V. K. Kataria, Advocate for the respondents. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by judgment debtor (JD) Bhag Singh (now deceased and represented by legal representatives), filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 06.10.2006 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Executing Court i.e. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot and appellate judgment dated 21.07.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot. Vide decree dated 19.02.2002 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot, suit filed by respondents herein for specific performance of agreement to sell was decreed directing the petitioner herein to execute sale deed in favour of C. R. No. 6552 of 2008 2 respondents herein as per agreement to sell dated 24.07.1997 regarding suit land measuring 26 kanals 04 marlas comprised of khasra no. 1491(11-12) and 1492/1 (14-12). Respondents filed execution petition. In the execution petition, possession of 08 kanals 08 marlas land only comprising of khasra no. 1491 (4-10) and khasra no. 1492/1 (4-8) was delivered to the respondents-decree holders (DHs). It was reported that area of khasra no. 1492/1 was recorded to be 14 kanals 12 marlas in jamabandi, 04 kanals 08 marlas in field book and 21 kanals 12 marlas in Aks-latha. The Executing Court, vide order dated 12.09.2006 (as reproduced in the revision petition), after taking into consideration areas of different parts of khasra no.1492 i.e. 1492/1, 1492/2 and 1492/3, ordered that necessary correction be made in jamabandi by preparing a Fard Badar depicting area of khasra no. 1492/2 as 21 kanals 12 marlas. In view of said order, necessary Fard Badar was received by the Executing Court. Accordingly, the Executing Court, vide impugned order dated 06.10.2006 (Annexure P-3), directed delivery of possession as per Fard Badar. The said order Annexure P-3 was challenged by the petitioner JD by filing appeal, which has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, vide impugned judgment dated 21.07.2008 (Annexure P-4). Feeling aggrieved, the JD has preferred the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the Executing Court could not go behind the decree. The contention, although apparently attractive being technical one, but is in fact devoid of any merit. Correction in jamabandi by Fard Badar was ordered by the Executing Court vide order dated 12.09.2006. The said order was not challenged by the JD and has therefore attained finality. The impugned order Annexure P-3 dated 06.10.2006 is only as a consequence of order dated 12.09.2006. Consequently, no fault can be found with order dated C. R. No. 6552 of 2008 3 06.10.2006 passed by the Executing Court so long as order dated 12.09.2006 passed by the Executing Court stands unchallenged. In this view of the matter, appellate judgment Annexure P-4 also does not suffer from any infirmity because order Annexure P-3 of the Executing Court, which was challenged in appeal, does not suffer from any infirmity. Even on the principle of equity, justice and good conscience, the petitioners have no case. Suit filed by the respondents was decreed for 26 kanals 04 marlas. However, respondents DHs would now get possession of 26 kanals 02 marlas land only i.e. not exceeding the suit land measuring 26 kanals 04 marlas. So long as possession of not more than 26 kanals 04 marlas land is delivered to the DHs, the petitioners would suffer no loss or injury and therefore, the petitioners have no case even on principle of justice, equity and good conscience. For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders of the courts below. The revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. April 19, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE