Civil Revision No. 4312 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4312 of 2009 Date of Decision: 10.8.2009 Meet @ Gurmit Ram ......Petitioner Versus Dharma Ram and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 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: Shri Rahul Chhatwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The judgment debtor is in revision aggrieved against the orders passed by the Courts below in the execution finalising the mode of partition between the parties. On 5.1.1993, the suit filed by Dharma, decree holder was decreed. In the said suit, the decree holder has claimed separate possession by partition of the share of the plaintiff in the joint property consisting of khasra No. 362 measuring 17 marlas. The learned trial Court passed a preliminary decree to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to his separate share to the extent of 4/20th share in khasra No. 362. In the proceedings for preparation of the final decree, a Local Commissioner was appointed to suggest the mode of partition. The Local Commissioner has reported about the existing construction; trees; machine Civil Revision No. 4312 of 2009 (2) and hand pump etc. The petitioner herein filed objections to the said report and after considering the objections, the Executing Court did not find any merit in the said objections of the petitioner and dismissed the same. It was noticed that the Local Commissioner has given the factual position in existence. Again Field Kanungo was appointed as a Local Commissioner, who has given his report dated 7.1.2006 along with the proposed site plan. In such proceedings, again the objections were filed by the petitioner. The Court found that the Local Commissioner has identified 4/20th share i.e. 3 marlas 4 sarsai, which portion has been shown in the site plan in the green colour. It has also been noticed that the Local Commissioner has not suggested any other part of Khasra No. 362/1, which can be given to the decree holder. In view of the said report of the Local Commissioner, the warrant of possession was ordered to be issued in respect of the green portion, which was held to have fallen to the share of the decree holder in terms of the report of the Field Kanungo. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nawanshahr. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that he has raised construction over the property in dispute and by giving portion earmarked by the Field Kanungo to the decree holder, the petitioner will lose construction, which has been raised by him. In the decree dated 5.1.1993, there is no order in respect of the possession to be maintained. The Field Kanungo has identified the land measuring 3 marlas 4 sarsai falling to the share of the decree holder. The judgment debtor has not suggested any other portion which can be given to the decree holder. Therefore, the mode of partition suggested by the Local Civil Revision No. 4312 of 2009 (3) Commissioner and accepted by the learned Executing Court, cannot be said to be unjust and unfair. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned orders, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 10.8.2009 ds