C.R. No. 1319 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1319 of 2009 Date of Decision: 05.08.2010 Karnail Singh .... Petitioner Versus Sodagar Singh ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocate for the respondent ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition is filed against order dated 15.10.2008 passed by Executing Court/Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Nakodar thereby dismissing the execution application of the decree holder-petitioner. 2. Learned Executing Court dismissed the execution application moved by decree holder-petitioner on the ground that decree holder could not show the date when he was dispossessed in violation of the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. The other ground for dismissal of execution application taken by learned Executing Court is that decree holder could not prove the identity of the suit land. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. In the opinion of this Court, suit property is mentioned and described in the plaint and decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is pertaining to the suit property mentioned in the plaint. Present C.R. No. 1319 of 2009 2 judgment debtor/respondent was sole defendant in the suit. In the suit plaintiff and defendant both were claiming their possession over the suit property, however, suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner after finding him in possession of the suit property. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent fairly stated that plaintiff is entitled to remain in possession over the suit property pertaining to which permanent prohibitory injunction decree is granted in his favour. However, he submits that in the garb of the decree plaintiff/petitioner is not entitled to disturb the possession over J.D's property which is not part of the suit property. Learned counsel for the respondent further states that he has absolutely no objection if plaintiff is put in possession over the suit property mentioned in the plaint but he can not be permitted to take possession over the property which is not a part of the suit property. Learned counsel for the respondent further states that Executing Court can execute the decree after identifying the suit property on his part. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection in the suggestion made by learned counsel for the respondent and both the counsel consented that matter be remanded back to the Executing Court to proceed with the execution in accordance with law and to deliver the possession to the plaintiff-petitioner over the suit property only after making due identification of the suit property. 7. In view of the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present petition is allowed and matter is remanded back to learned Executing Court to decide it afresh in the light of the observations and statement of the counsel for the parties made herein above. C.R. No. 1319 of 2009 3 8. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Executing Court on 31.8.2010 for further directions. (ALOK SINGH) 05.08.2010 JUDGE reena