cr no.3808 of 2006.doc - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.3808 of 2006 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 30.11.2009 **** Anil Talwar . . . . Petitioner VS. Sheela Talwar and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. S.S. Walia, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. R.M. Suri, Adovcate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. ***** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) (1). This revision petition is directed against the order dated 02.05.2006 passed by the Executing Court-cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby, it has been ordered that the house in dispute bearing Municipal No.B- XIX-1037, Tagore Nagar, Ludhiana cannot be partitioned and has to be sold by way of auction proceedings in terms of the Partition Decree already passed. (2). Shorn of the details, the controversy pertains to House No.62-A (Old) 96 (new) bearing Municipal No.B-XIX-1037, Tagore Nagar, Ludhiana. Respondent No.1 to 2, namely, Sheela Talwar; Miss Aditi Talwar and Mastar Aditya Talwar filed a suit for partition which was decreed by the Civil cr no.3808 of 2006.doc - 2 - Court vide judgement and decree dated 02.05.2002 and a preliminary decree for separate possession between the co- sharers was passed. The said decree has not been executed till date and finally, the Executing Court vide the impugned order, has held that as per the report of the Local Commissioner, the house in question cannot be partitioned and the only way to give effect to the partition decree is to sell the same and divide the sale proceeds amongst the joint owners. (3). Aggrieved, one of the co-owner has approached this Court. (4). During the pendency of this revision petition, certain new events have taken place. Respondent No. 4, namely, Sneh Saxena d/o late Sh. Anand Sarup Talwar who is the co- owner to the extent of 1/4th share, has given an affidavit transferring her share in favour of the petitioner. Similarly, respondent No.5 (S.L. Midda s/o Sh. Ram Chand) on his as well as on behalf of respondent No.6 & 7, namely, Anurag Midda and Mona Midda has also filed an affidavit transferring their shares in favour of respondent No.1 to 3, namely, Sheela Talwar; Miss Aditi Talwar and Mastar Aditya Talwar. In this manner, the petitioner (Anil Talwar) has become owner to the extent of half share, whereas respondent No.1 to 3 became owners of the remaining half share. In these changed circumstances, it is quite possible that the house can very well be partitioned. (5). Consequently and for the reasons afore-stated, the revision petition is allowed; the order dated 02.05.2006 passed by cr no.3808 of 2006.doc - 3 - the Executing Court-cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the Executing Court with a direction to appoint a private Architect as the Local Commissioner at the expense of both the parties, who shall inspect the house and submit a drawing/plan proposing the partition of the house in two equivalent shares. The entire exercise shall be undertaken by the Executing Court within a period of three months by not allowing any of the parties to resort to any kind of delaying tactics. Compliance report shall also be submitted. (6). In so far as the controversy regarding division of bank accounts is concerned, the same shall also be decided by the Executing Court, in accordance with law, within the same timeframe. (7). Ordered accordingly. (8). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 30.11.2009 vishal shonkar