IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5945 of 2009 Date of Decision: February 1, 2010 Satbir Singh and another. …Petitioners Versus Smt. Nawab Kaur and another. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present: Mr. J.S. Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate, for the respondent. S.D. Anand, J. The petitioners herein are objectors who are resisting the execution of the impugned decree by raising a plea that they had purchased 90 sq. yard area from Mewa Devi and Bijender Singh, vide sale deeds dated 14.10.1981 and 17.11.1981. The predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners herein were co-owners of the entire holding, along with certain others. It is common ground presently that one Ram Chand Premi had filed a Civil Suit against the respondents herein which came to be decreed, vide judgment and decree dated C.R. No. 5945 of 2009 25.03.1989. The first appeal filed against that judgment and decree was dismissed. The Regular Second Appeal also came to be dismissed. The learned Trial Court had, while dismissing the suit filed by Ram Chand Premi, allowed the counter-claim made by the respondent herein for possession of specific portion of the property in suit. It is beyond the pale of controversy that Ram Chand Premi aforementioned also filed objections in the course of execution application which came to be dismissed. There is also no controversy that the litigation aforementioned was in relation to the property in suit and that the petitioners herein had not been impleaded as party thereto. However, the learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the entitlement of the petitioners herein to have their share of 90 sq. yard area in a partition. His only objection is to the insistence the petitioners herein to a specific 90 sq. yards area which they claim to have purchased from their predecessors-in-interest. The possession of the disputes premises is concededly being delivered in the execution of the impugned decree. Though the petitioners herein would be well within their right to obtain 90 sq. yard area (purchased by them from their predecessors-in-interest vide sale deed dated 14.10.1981 and 17.11.1981), they cannot validly resist the execution of the impugned decree which pertains to site ABCDEFGHIJK, shown in site plan Ex.C2 which had been filed in that suit. 2 C.R. No. 5945 of 2009 The petitioners herein shall be entitled to have their 90 square yard area only on filing a plea for partition. The petition is held to be without any force and is ordered to be dismissed. The stay order dated 15.10.2009 passed by this Court shall stand vacated forthwith. The vacation of the stay order shall be intimated to the learned Trial Court forthwith. February 1, 2010 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 3