In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 204 of 2008 Date of Decision:July 07, 2009 Het Ram ---Petitioner versus Smt. Shanti ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.Lokesh Sinhal ,Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Sihota, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. *** SABINA, J. Het Ram-petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying that order dated 1.9.2007(Annexure P-4) passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Palwal/Executing Court be set aside. Plaintiff-Smt. Shanti filed a suit for possession by partition of the suit land measuring 17 marlas. Vide judgment and decree dated 24.11.2004, the said suit was decreed and a preliminary decree for partition was passed. Now in execution proceedings, petitioner filed an application under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The said application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 1.9.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Junior division), Palwal. Hence, the Civil Revision No. 204 of 2008 -2- present revision petition. Heard. Section 4 of the Act reads as under:- “Partition suit by transferee of share in dwelling-house.-(1) Where a share of a dwelling-house belonging to an undivided family has been transferred to a person who is not a member of such family and such transferee sues for partition, the court shall, if any member of the family being a shareholder shall undertake to buy the share of such transferee, make a valuation of such share in such manner as it thinks fit and direct the sale of such share to such shareholder, and may give all necessary and proper directions in that behalf. (2) If in any case described in sub-section (1) two or more members of the family being such shareholders severally undertake to buy such share, the court shall follow the procedure prescribed by sub-section (2) of the last foregoing section.” Vide the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 4 of the Act was dismissed on the ground that in the written statement filed by the petitioner, it had not been stated that the suit property was residential/dwelling house. Moreover, the suit property had been purchased by the plaintiff from Hari Chand, who was not real brother of the petitioner and they did not constitute any joint undivided Hindu family. In these circumstances, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palwal/Executing court rightly came to the conclusion that the ingredients Civil Revision No. 204 of 2008 -3- of Section 4 of the Act in the present case were not satisfied and has thus, rightly dismissed the application filed under Section 4 of the Act by the petitioner. No interference by this Court is called for. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 07, 2009 PARAMJIT