Civil Revision No. 100 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 100 of 2010 Date of decision: 11.1.2010 Gurbax Singh .. Petitioner v. Harnam alias Harnam Dass and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. J. S. Kahlon, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 9.11.2009, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC in execution of a decree passed in his favour, was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner filed a suit, being joint owner/co-sharer of Khasra No. 59R//8/2(1-4) against respondents No. 1 and 2 along with others, for permanent injunction. However, finally the same was decreed on 11.2.2003 restraining the respondents-defendants from dispossessing the petitioner-plaintiff from the suit land. Application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC was filed by the petitioner claiming that after the passing of the decree, a part of the suit land measuring 4 marlas and 1-1/2 sarsahi has been encroached upon by the respondents and the petitioner was entitled to get the possession thereof. In support of the claim, a report of demarcation conducted by a retired kanungo was produced. However, the learned court below, considering the fact that there was another report of a serving kunungo regarding demarcation of the property on record and further that there was no decree of possession passed in favour of the petitioner and still further there being no specific date on which the alleged encroachment had been made by the respondents, dismissed the application finding that there was no violation of the judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that report of Civil Revision No. 100 of 2010 [2] demarcation produced by the petitioner should have been relied upon by the learned court below as the same was carried out by a retired kanungo. Even if the court was not satisfied with that report, the report produced by the respondents should not have been relied upon, rather, a fresh Local Commissioner was required to be appointed. The petitioner has been deprived of the property. The decree passed in his favour has been violated by the respondents and he deserves to be put in possession of the property, which has been encroached upon by the respondents after the passing of the decree of injunction in favour of the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Firstly, the decree, which was passed in favour of the petitioner, was merely for injunction. In the application filed under Order 21 Rule 32 PC and the material produced on record, the petitioner has not been able to point out as to when the alleged encroachment was made. The report, which is sought to be relied upon by the petitioner, was got by him from a retired kunungo, whereas another report, which is on record, is by a serving revenue official in terms of the order passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Nangal, where the demarcation was conducted in the presence of parties. Once there is no decree in favour of the petitioner for possession and further there being no specific date on which the respondents allegedly encroached upon a part of the property owned by the petitioner after the passing of the decree, in my opinion, no fault can be found with the impugned order, as the petitioner cannot be put in possession of the property in proceedings under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC, as the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 11.1.2010 mk