CR No.3506 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3506 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.05.2010 Mahinder Pal & Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Paras Ram & Anr. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA Present: Mr.Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate, for the petitioners. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 11.5.2010, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ganaur, vide which application moved by the petitioners for taking on record the certified copies of judgment/order dated 3.12.1987 and compromise dated 25.11.1987, has been dismissed. In the application, it was claimed that the suit of the plaintiffs was based on the judgment passed by this court in RSA No.218 of 1982, which was disposed of in terms of compromise dated 25.11.1987. The plaintiffs/petitioners in the suit, sought declaration that they were owners in possession to the extent of 196 kanals 13 marlas as they had inherited 126 CR No.3506 of 2010 2 kanals 15 marlas from their father and 126 kanals 15 marlas from Tek Chand. Vide compromise the land measuring 56 kanals 17 marlas was relinquished in favour of the defendants. The case of the petitioners was that after 7 years, the defendants in collusion with revenue authorities got sanctioned mutation No.2403 with respect of 126 kanals 15 marlas instead of 56 kanals 17 marlas, which was under challenge before the Court. The case set up in the application by the petitioners, was that when the certified copies, of the judgment and compromise were applied for, they came to know that record had been burnt. It was during the reconstruction of the record that the proceedings relating to mutation were taken out by the defendant/respondents. The case of the petitioners further was, that statement was made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants, to the effect that the documents may be submitted before the appropriate court. Learned trial court on appreciation of respective stands came to the conclusion that the compromise deed was already on record as Ex.P.6 and therefore, relief qua this part was rendered infructuous. However, prayer for placing on record the judgment of this court was declined in view of the order passed by this court which reads as under:- “ The only authenticated document in the present case was mutation No.2403 dated 22.4.1994 which clearly states that the mutation is being sanctioned on the basis of the High Court judgment and decree dated 3.12.1987. From the above discussion, it is clear that the respondents are trying to unsettle CR No.3506 of 2010 3 the settled dispute between the parties by trying to have the records reconstructed for ulterior motive which cannot be permitted.” The learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the impugned order on the plea that the learned trial court mis-interpreted the judgment of this court to deny the relief claimed. On consideration of matter, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is not understood as to how the plaintiffs/petitioners can maintain a suit when the matter qua the decree suffered by Tek Chand has already attained finality. Remedy with the petitioners, if any, is to get the judgment and decree executed/enforced, specially when mutation confers no title and is merely a record of rights, which can be corrected at any time by the revenue authorities. It is also not understood as to why the judgment of the High Court was required to be placed on record, as the compromise which stands proved is already on record and the judgment of High Court can always be looked into by the courts. Therefore, no ground is made out to interfere with the order, as the learned trial court was bound by the order passed by the High Court. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K.Sharma) 25.05.2010 Judge rp