IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4607 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: January 20, 2011 Akbar .. Petitioner Vs. Kamruddin and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Yashwinder Paul Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) The petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of CPC for setting aside the order dated 28.3.2009 (Annexure P-10) passed by the trial court dismissing execution application filed by him. The judgment and decree was with regard to permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering in the possession of the petitioners over the land. The decree further directed the defendant to remove the construction made in the shape of baithak in the land of the plaintiff. However, it was further directed that the baithak be got removed only after demarcation of the property of the plaintiff and that of the defendant through Tehsildar Ferozepur Jhirka. Having failed to remove the construction, the plaintiff-petitioner filed the execution application. Arguments heard. Record perused. The impugned order does not speak if the executing court has discussed anything about the removal of the construction, but it discussed about the right of the decree holder to raise construction over the land in dispute. Any way, learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted if he got the demarcated conducted in order to find out as to where the baithak was constructed. He failed to reply to the question. Faced with the situation, he prays for withdrawal of the execution application and to file a fresh one by appending some other documents along with the execution, which is permitted. Civil Revision No. 4607 of 2010 (O&M) -2- *** Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. However, the petitioner is directed to withdraw the execution application with permission to file fresh one along with documents. This petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to impart complete justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondents as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. Still, if dissatisfied, the respondents may move to this court for recalling this order. January 20, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge