Civil Revision No.6017 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6017 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision 08.02.2011 Surinderpal Singh and another ...... Petitioners VERSUS Ravinder Pal Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: This petition is directed against the order dated 07.08.2010, passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal, dismissing the objection petition, preferred by the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 and 6- judgment debtor Nos.1 to 4 (herein referred as 'judgment debtor Nos.1 to 4'). The facts in the background of the case are that a decree for joint possession was passed on 21.09.1985 by Sub Judge Ist Class, Palwal, in favour of Surinderpal Singh, Paranpal Singh, Gianderpal Singh, Surajpal Singh, Balbir Singh, Bharatpal Singh, Smt.Shakuntla Devi wife of Bharatpal Singh, Smt.Shakuntla Devi, daughter of Rattan Singh, Ajit Singh son of Smt.Kalawati and Ravinderpal Singh. Admittedly, the said judgment and decree has become final. Some of the co-sharers-Judgment Debtor Nos.1 to 4 filed the objection petition, which was dismissed. Civil Revision No.6017 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Arguments heard. Record perused. There is no dispute that a decree for joint possession was passed in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 5 and 6 on 21.09.1985 which became final between the parties. The decree for joint possession required execution by way of conferring symbolic possession upon the parties. However, the petitioners Surinderpal Singh and Harinderpal Singh, sons of Bharatpal Singh as well as Shukantla wife of Bharatpal Singh and Surinderpal Singh son of Hakam Singh (now respondent Nos.5 and 6) in their objection petition has pleaded as under:- (i)The petitioners being the defendants in Civil Suit No.852 of 1982 cannot file the execution; (ii)The Execution petition is not within limitation; (iii)Mutation No.1161 dated 21.04.2005 was rightly cancelled as the same was not sanctioned according to the terms of the decree dated 21.09.1985; (iv)The objectors want to get the mutation No.1161 rectified under the garb of the execution; (v)No warrant of possession can be issued in favour of the petitioners as they were the plaintiffs-decree-holders; (vi)It was a decree for declaration and inexecutable. It would be pertinent to mention here that the trial Court has observed in para No.8 of the order that the petitioners do not press the objection with regard to limitation. As regards the first objection, since the parties are co-sharers and it was the decree of joint possession in favour of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants, therefore, any of the co-sharers, over whom the rights of Civil Revision No.6017 of 2010 (O&M) 3 ownership were conferred on the basis of decree passed by the trial Court, could file the execution. As such, the petitioners, being the co-sharers, certainly had such right. The objection regarding limitation not pressed. As regards the objection regarding correction of mutation No.1161, the said mutation being not in accordance with the judgment and decree dated 21.09.1985, deserves to be rectified. As regards the warrants of possession, it may be observed that while executing the decree for joint possession, the Court could order issuance of the symbolic possession only and not for the actual possession. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Court has issued the symbolic possession in favour of the petitioners-decree holders and the revenue authorities, vide roznamcha No.397 dated 16.10.2010 has delivered the same to them. No merit. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 08.02.2011 mamta-II