IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6858 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:- 09.11.2011 Ujjagar Singh ...Petitioner Versus Ram Kishan and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) This revision petition under Section 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 01.06.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehabad and judgment dated 20.05.2011 passed by District Judge, Fatehabad. The petitioner had filed a Civil Suit No. 167 dated 02.09.2005 for injunction that out of 5 kanal 6 marlas of land situated in village Hijrawa Khurd, Tehsil and District Fatehabad, he is co-sharer in possession of 11/106 share i.e 11marlas of land and that he is in exclusive possession of land of khasra No. 187//6/1 min south (0-4), 15/2 (0-7). This suit was decided on 16.10.2007 in which contemnor/respondent No. 1 was restrained from causing inference in the land of khewat No. 1589, khatoni No. 2021, khasra No. 187//61/, 15/2. Petitioner was allowed to use the land of 1 marla 6 sarsai peacefully. The petitioner's grievance is that respondent/contemnors No. 2 to 5 have flouted the orders of the Court on 27.10.2007 and gave beatings to the plaintiff/petitioner. In the presence of respondent NO. 6, all the contemnors started ploughing the land with Tractor and damaged the cultivated crop of the petitioner. Thereafter, contempt petition qua respondent No. 6 was dismissed by the Court on 05.11.2008 under Order 9 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code'). In reply, the contemnors/respondents took preliminary objections that petitioner has suppressed the true and material facts from the Court. As per judgment and decree dated 16.10.2007, the plaintiff/petitioner was never held to be in possession of killa No. 6/1, 15/2, ½, 5/3 and 7/2. Rights of other co-sharers were also upheld and it was held that defendants cannot oust the plaintiff from using that Rasta which he has purchased on the basis of registered sale deed. Till the proceedings of partition are not finalized, the plaintiff being co-sharers was given relief against the defendant on the basis of sale deed and the defendant was restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the area though right was kept in fact for respondent No. 1 to use his share i.e 1 kanal 6 sarsai. The factum of giving beatings to the petitioner was denied. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court, vide order dated 05.11.2008:- 1. “Whether the respondents have violated the order of the Court dated 16.10.2007 as alleged?OPP 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 3. Relief.” Thereafter, the trial Court has returned the finding on issue No. 1 against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents. Petitioner purchased the share in Rasta and this land has been reflected in the revenue record EX.D1 as Gair Mumkin Rasta. In demarcation report (EX.D2), the rasta has been found to be existing from numbers referred by the petitioner. One of the co-sharers Labh Singh etc filed a suit against respondent No. 1 on 07.01.2005 but since respondent No. 1 purchased the land of Rasta by means of sale deed, therefore, that suit was compromised being dismissed as withdrawn. On the basis of Jamabandi for the year 2002-03, the trial Court has returned a finding that the rasta existed in the land of 187//6/1, 15/2 and the contention of the petitioner that it was carved out by the respondent/contemnor was not duly proved and thus, it was held that respondents have not violated the orders of the Court dated 16.10.2007. Order dated 16.10.2007 reads as under:- “It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiff stands decreed and Ujjager Singh having ½ share in the Khewat No. 1589 Khatoni No. 2021 Khasra No. 187//6/1, 15/2/6/1 and defendant Ram Kishan is having 1/16 share defendant is restrained to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff as co-sharer. Defendant is at liberty to use his share i.e 1 kanal 6 sarsai. Parties are left to bear their own costs.” A perusal of the order dated 16.10.2007 shows that petitioner and respondents were held to be co-sharers in their respective land and the defendants was restrained to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. As per Ex.D1 land of Khasra No. 187, 15/2, 6/1 is Gair Mumkin Rasta. Jamabandi for the year 2002-03 is shown to be Rasta. There is no question of violation of Court's order dated 16.10.2007. After going through Ex.D1 and order dated 16.10.2007 of the Court, one thing is clear that the disputed Rasta was in existence prior to the trial Court order. The respondents have not violated the orders of the Court in any manner. They are co-sharers and they have a right to use the land of Rasta for impress or ingress till the land cannot be partitioned. No merits. Dismissed. November 09, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) G.Arora JUDGE