Civil Revision No.5260 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5260 of 2011 Date of Decision:30.08.2011 Hardial Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus Roshan Lal .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Pawan Kumar Mutneja, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Concisely, the facts, which require to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record are, that originally the suit filed by Roshan Lal son of Surta Ram-respondent plaintiff-DH(for brevity the “plaintiff-DH”) against Hardial Singh and Balwant Singh sons of Nasib Chand-petitioner-defendants-JDs (for short the defendant-JDs”), for possession was decreed by the trial Court, by means of judgment and decree dated 04.09.2006(Annexure P-3), which admittedly has attained the finality, the operative part of which is, as under:- “For my aforesaid issue-wise discussion and decision thereon, the suit of plaintiff succeeds and the same is decreed with costs and plaintiff is accordingly held entitled for possession of land measuring 0 Kanal 11 Marlas fully described in the head-note of the plaint from the defendants.” 2. As the defendant-JDs did not comply with the indicated decree (Annexure P-3), therefore, the plaintiff-DH instituted the execution-petition. The defendant-JDs appeared and filed the objection-petition that since, it is nowhere mentioned that the possession of which portion of land measuring 11 Marlas is to Civil Revision No.5260 of 2011 2 be delivered to the plaintiff, so, the decree of the trial Court is not executable. 3. The plaintiff-DH refuted the claim of the defendant-JDs, filed the reply, in which it was mentioned that, the identification of the property in dispute is clearly depicted in the report of the Local Commissioner and the objections were stated to have been filed, only to delay the disposal of the execution-petition. It will not be out of place to mention here that the plaintiff-DH has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the objection-petition and prayed for its dismissal. 4. The Executing Court dismissed the objection-petition filed by the defendant-JDs, by means of impugned order dated 29.05.2009(Annexure P-1). 5. Aggrieved by the decision(Annexure P-1) of the Executing Court, the defendant-JDs filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, being not maintainable, by the first Appellate Court, by way of impugned order dated 23.02.2011(Annexure P-5). 6. The petitioner-defendants-JDs still did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders(Annexures P-1 and P-5) of the courts below and preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this relevant behalf. 8. As is evident from the record that, originally the suit was decreed by the trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 15.06.2005, on the basis of demarcation report dated 20.06.1998. In the wake of appeal filed by the defendant-JDs, the matter was again remanded back to the trial Court, by the first Appellate Court, through the medium of order of remand dated 13.10.2005. In pursuance thereof, the trial Court again appointed office kanungo as Local Commissioner, to demarcate the suit land and to submit his report in this respect. Accordingly, the Local Commissioner(office kanungo) submitted his demarcation Civil Revision No.5260 of 2011 3 report dated 23.03.2006, on the basis of which, the suit of the plaintiff-DH was again decreed by the trial Court on 04.09.2006. The first and second appeals filed by the defendant-JDs were also dismissed. 9. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since, the identity of the land in dispute is not established, so the decree of the trial Court is not executable, lacks merit. 10. As is clear that, the identity of the property in dispute is clearly depicted in the demarcation report dated 23.03.2006 prepared by the office kanungo, after visiting the spot. Moreover, the same very demarcation report has already been discussed and the objections of the defendant-JDs in this regard, were decided by the trial Court, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 04.09.2006, which has already attained the finality. Once, the objections in regard to the demarcation report have already been adjudicated in the main judgment, then the defendant-JDs cannot possibly be heard to say that the same demarcation report is illegal, as now urged on their behalf. 11. Therefore, to me, the Executing Court has rightly negatived the claim of the defendant-JDs and recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection. Such orders, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so, the impugned orders are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. August 30, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE