In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 5065 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:September 10, 2009 Ram Saroop Singh ---Petitioner versus Surjit Singh ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Ms. Jaspal Kaur Gurna,Advocate, for the petitioner *** SABINA J. Petitioner – Ram Saroop Singh has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 3.8.2009 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Samana. Surjit Singh -respondent had filed a suit for possession of khasra Nos. 104//17/4(0-3) and 307//194(0-3 ½ ) total measuring 0 Kanal 6 ½ marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Kularan, Tehsil Samana District Patiala against Ram Saroop. The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 9.11.2005. The decree-holder has filed the execution petition for implementation of the decree. During the pendency of the execution application, the judgment – debtor filed an objection petition that as per the revenue record, there was no Khasra bearing Nos. 104//17/4(0-3) Civil Revision No. 5065 of 2009(O&M) -2- and 307//194(0-3 ½ ). Vide impugned order, the said application was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition is devoid of any merit. Parties are real brothers and the property in dispute was owned by their father-Joginder Singh. As per the copy of the jamabandi for the year 1997-98, placed on record during the course of arguments, Khasra No. 104//17/4(0-3) and 307//194(0-7) are owned by Joginder Singh, father of the parties. In these circumstance, the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said Khasra numbers were not in existence, is without any force as the same are duly mentioned in the jamabandi for the year 1997-98. Decree was passed only qua 3 ½ marlas of land although the total land measures 7 marlas. In these circumstances, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 10, 2009 PARAMJIT