Civil Revision No.1048 of 2008 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1048 of 2008 Date of Decision: February 22, 2008 Baljinder Singh and others ...Petitioners VERSUS Chaman Singh & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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.Ravi Kant Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Order dated 11.2.2008 passed by the Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajpura as Executing Court is under challenge in the present revision petition. Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 10.12.1982. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. On 14.5.1996, the Lower Appellate Court, however, Civil Revision No.1048 of 2008 : 2 : decreed the suit by reversing the judgment of the trial Court. This order was impugned by filing Regular Second Appeal before this Court. The judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court was modified vide order dated 25.11.2005. Mahipal, who had filed the Regular Second appeal, had purchased the suit land from one Tarsem Lal, who had purchased the same from one Kalyan Singh. Tarsem Lal had, thus, claimed himself to be a bonafide purchaser of the suit land. The first Appellate Court had decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance and for joint possession of the land in question. Balram defendant No.1 was consequently directed to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. While disposing of the Regular Second Appeal, this Court had observed that the plaintiff could only get the sale deed executed on the basis of an agreement dated 10.12.1982 and for a joint possession. It was specifically noticed that no partition had taken place between the co-sharers. The Court accordingly noticed that if any sale deed in pursuance to the agreement dated 10.12.1982, is to be executed in favour of the plaintiff, it shall be subject to partition proceedings and shall only operate qua the share of Balram. Defendant Balram had not filed any appeal before this Court. It was accordingly observed that plaintiff-respondent cannot really have any claim against appellant Mahipal in the said Regular Second Appeal. When the counsel representing the parties were confronted with this situation, they agreed that the Regular Second Appeal be disposed of with direction to Mahavir Singh to get the sale deed executed from Balram and also to claim joint possession in pursuance to the Civil Revision No.1048 of 2008 : 3 : aforesaid sale deed. It was further observed that the aforesaid sale deed shall be reckoned to be a sale of area from the share of Balram and shall be subject to final partition between the parties. In the background, as noticed above, application for summoning the execution file was made before the Executing Court, which had been adjourned sine-die. Noticing the order passed by this Court requiring plaintiff Mahavir Singh to get sale deed executed from Balram and also to claim joint possession, it was observed that the applicant had a right to get the decree executed against Balram and his L.Rs. The L.Rs. of Balram, appearing before the Executing Court, also said that they would not have any objection to execute the sale deed. The objections filed by the other respondent-applicants were found without any basis and accordingly the same were dismissed. Mr.Ravi Kant Sharma, the counsel appearing for the petitioners has urged that L.Rs. of Balram can execute a sale deed on the basis of agreement only if partition of the property is done and their shares in regard to particular khasra numbers are identified. The counsel would further contend that the High Court had issued direction about the sale only after partition of the suit land. The perusal of the order passed by this Court, which has been referred in detail above, would not support the submission or contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners. Admittedly, the respondents are co-sharers and the suit land has not yet been partitioned. This Court while disposing of the Regular Second Appeal clearly observed that the sale deed even if executed in terms of the agreement dated 10.12.1982 shall only operate qua share of Balram. There was no direction for partition before the execution of the Civil Revision No.1048 of 2008 : 4 : agreement could be sought. It could not have been so. The suit was for specific performance and no prayer for partition was made. The suit property being in the joint ownership of co-sharers could have been sold qua respective shares and not in regard to any particular specific khasra numbers. This Court while disposing of the Regular Second Appeal clearly held that parties may approach partitioning authority for expeditiously disposal of the partition proceedings, but still can seek execution of the agreement from Balram. In this view of the matter, the submissions made by the learned counsel that execution can only be done after the partition, cannot be accepted nor any such directions were made by this Court while disposing of the Regular Second Appeal. I do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. February 22, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE