Civil Revision No. 6823 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 6823 of 2009 Date of decision: 27.11.2009 Gurdial Singh ......petitioner Versus Kamla Devi and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. P.S.Baath, Advocate. for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Respondents Kamla Devi and others filed a suit for passing of final decree for delivery of possession of 1/4th share in the suit land. Objection petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide impugned order dated 19.8.2009. Hence, the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present revision petition is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Admittedly, in civil suit bearing No.305-T of 15.6.1982, a preliminary decree was passed in favour of plaintiff Radhey Sham Civil Revision No. 6823 of 2009 2 and against defendants Harinder Nath, Kamla Devi, Yashoda Devi and Muni Devi for partition of the house in dispute. The copy of the judgment and decree passed in the said suit are Annexures P-1 and P-2 respectively. Civil Suit No.333-T of 12.4.1997/9.1.2004 filed by the present defendants for separate possession was dismissed being barred by principle of resjudicata as on the same cause of action civil suit No.305-T of 15.6.1982 had been decided on 6.10.1987. The judgment and decree passed in civil suit No. 333-T of 12.4.1997/9.1.2004 decided on 26.7.2004 are Anenxures P-3 and P- 4 respectively. Thereafter, the respondents filed the petition for passing of the final decree for delivery of possession. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition for passing of the final decree could only be filed by the present respondents in civil suit No. 333-T of 12.4.1997/9.1.2004 and not under civil suit No.305-T of 15.6.1982 is without any force. The suit filed by the respondents for separate possession was dismissed on the ground of resjudicata as the suit for possession by way of partition had already been decided in civil suit No.305-T of 15.6.1982. The respondents have not sought execution in the earlier suits but they filed a suit for passing of final decree on the basis of the preliminary decree passed in civil suit No.305-T of 15.6.1982. In appeal, filed against the judgment and decree dated 26.7.2004 in civil suit No.333-T of 12.4.1997/9.1.2004, the learned Civil Revision No. 6823 of 2009 3 Additional District Judge, while dismissing the same, held that the present respondents were entitled to file an application for final decree in pursuance of preliminary decree dated 6.10.1987. The application, if so filed, shall be decided in accordance with law. The preliminary decree dated 6.10.1987 was upheld in appeal by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 28.9.1991 and the appeal filed against the same before this Court was dismissed in limine in the year 1991 itself. The judgment passed by the Additional District Judge in Civil Appeal No.182 of 25.8.2004 against the decision in civil suit bearing No. 333-T of 12.4.1997/9.1.2004 is Annexure P-5. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court rightly held that the objection petition filed by the petitioner was liable to be dismissed. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE November 27, 2009 anita