CR No. 6310 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6310 of 2008(O&M) Decided on : 15-12-2008 Parveen Kumar and others ....Petitioner VERSUS Kulwant Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. J.R.Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kashmir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. MAHESH GROVER, J C.M. No. 25572-CII of 2008 C.M allowed. Annexures P-5 and P-6 are taken on record. CR No. 6310 of 2008 A decree passed in favour of the respondents no.1 to 69 is in execution to which the petitioner has filed the objections by contending that an agreement had been executed in their favour by the Gram Panchayat to whom the land belonged on 8th November, 1997 and that they were in possession of the these shops as tenants since 1997. The suit is also of the year 1997 although prior in time to the agreement which was decided in the year 2001 holding that the respondents were the owners of the property and not the Gram Panchayat. In this view of the matter, if any agreement was executed by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioners that itself would be without any legal sanction as they have no authority to execute such an agreement. CR No. 6310 of 2008 (O&M) 2 There is nothing on record to suggest that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court in the civil suit resulting in the passing of the decree has been subjected to any further challenge. In this view of the matter, the petitioners apparently have no right to continue in the property and therefore the objections have been rightly declined. The revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that having regard to the fact that they are in possession of the property since 1997 some time may be allowed to them to vacate the premises. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners have been in possession since 1997 as per the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would be adequately served if the petitioners are allowed to continue in the premises for another period of six months subject to the condition that they shall furnish an undertaking before the Executing Court within a period of three weeks to the effect that they shall hand over vacant physical possession of the property in question to the respondents. In such an eventuality, the warrants of possession executed by the Executing Court shall remain in abeyance. The Executing Court shall be free to impose any condition upon the petitioners. In the event of the petitioners not furnishing an undertaking within the stipulated period the effect of the impugned order shall stand revived. December 15 , 2008 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge