Civil Revision No. 3963 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3963 of 2011 Date of Decision: 14.07.2011 *** Swaran Kaur .. Petitioner Vs. Krishan Lal & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner. ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is alleged to be a co-sharer along with respondent Gurnam Singh, her brother, against whom and in favour of respondent No.1 Krishan, a decree for recovery of Rs.1,36,000/- along with interest was passed. During execution proceedings, the land of Gurnam Singh was put to auction and bid goes in favour of respondent No.2 being the highest bidder. In order to deliver the possession of the suit land to the auction purchaser, the Court below vide order dated 10.6.2011 issued warrants of possession. Dis-satisfied with the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that by virtue of Civil Court decree the petitioner had got 1/10th share in the suit land, which has been ordered to be attached and at the most possession of the land to the extent of share of Gurnam Singh, can be delivered. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that the objections filed by the petitioner are still pending before the Court below and without deciding the same, straightway, warrants of possession of the suit land has been ordered. The perusal of the impugned order reveals that there is no reflection therein about the pendency or decision of the objections filed by the petitioner prior to issuance of warrants of possession. The impugned order is not speaking one and prior to order for issuance of warrants of possession, objections filed by the petitioner must have been decided first, Civil Revision No. 3963 of 2011 2 especially in the light of the fact that in the suit property, petitioner is one of the co-sharer. For the above discussion, the instant revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Executing Court below to consider the matter in the light of observations made above. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, they will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondents that if they feel dissatisfied with this order, they may move an application to recall the same. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 14, 2011 Jiten