Civil Revision No. 3119 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3119 of 2010 Date of Decision: 5.7.2010 Om Parkash .....Petitioner Versus Suresh Kumar .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Shri Sandeep Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J (Oral). Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 12.1.2010 passed by the learned Executing Court, dismissing the execution petition filed by the petitioner as the property, subject matter of the suit, was found to be different than the property existing at the spot. The plaintiff-petitioner obtained a decree for permanent injunction on the basis of site plan Exhibit P.1. The defendant produced site plan Exhibit D.1. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court on 4.1.1988, whereby the plaintiff was restrained from interfering in the property ABCDEF as mentioned in the site plan Exhibit D.1 and the defendant was restrained from interfering in the property shown as ABCDEF in the site plan Exhibit P.1. Civil Revision No. 3119 of 2010 [2] An application was filed by the petitioner before the learned Executing Court alleging that the defendant has taken forcible possession of the property shown as ABCDF in the site plan Exhibit P.1. The learned trial Court dismissed the said petition. The petitioner challenged the said order passed by the Executing Court before this Court. This Court directed the trial Court to appoint a Revenue Officer as a Local Commissioner, who was to find out as to whether the defendant-respondent has interfered with the property shown as ABCDEF in the site plan Exhibit P.1, relied upon by the petitioner. In pursuance of such order, the learned Executing Court appointed Tehsildar, Indri, as Local Commissioner. Such Local Commissioner has given his report on 26.11.2009. As per the said report, the property shown as ABCDEF in the site plan Exhibit P.1 is not existing at the spot. Therefore, it was found that the petitioner has failed to locate the suit property. Thus, the execution was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that except street on the northern side, the property is identifiable with the property shown in Exhibit P.1. It is contended that the construction has been raised on the portion shown as street in the site plan Exhibit P.1, which was prepared in the year 1986. Thus, it is the same property in respect of which the petitioner has sought execution. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced the site plan Exhibit P.1 as also site plan prepared by the Local Commissioner. A perusal of the two site plans shows that not only the street on the northern side could not be located on the spot by the Local Commissioner, but the 10 feet wide passage on the southern side is also not identifiable. Still further, in the site plan Exhibit P.1 on the southern side, the property marked AB measures 75 feet, whereas the said site measures 170 feet in the site plan prepared by Civil Revision No. 3119 of 2010 [3] the Local Commissioner. Thus, the property, which was shown as ABCDEF in Exhibit P.1, cannot be said to be the same property which is at the spot. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 05-07-2010 ds