Civil Revision No. 4297 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4297 of 2008 Date of Decision: 23.10.2009 Gurpreet Singh ......Petitioner Versus Sant Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri S.C. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Goel, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Challenge in the present revision petition is to the orders dated 25.4.2008 and 15.3.2008 passed by the Courts below, whereby an application filed by the petitioner to obtain actual physical possession of the land in dispute, was dismissed. The suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell (Exhibit P.1) dated 15.5.2003, was decreed on 25.5.2006. The first appeal was dismissed on 30.7.2007, and even the second appeal was dismissed on 4.2.2008. In pursuance of the decree passed, the sale deed in respect of 16 kanals of land out of 50 kanals 3 marlas i.e. 320/1003 Civil Revision No. 4297 of 2008 [2] share was executed. With sale deed having been executed in favour of the petitioner/Decree Holder, the petitioner sought actual physical possession of the land conveyed in his favour vide the aforesaid sale deed. Such request was resisted by the Judgment Debtor on the ground that the decree holder can get only symbolic possession and the actual physical possession can be obtained by co-sharer only after partition of the suit land by metes and bounds. Both the Courts have rejected the request for actual physical possession of the land, while issuing warrants for symbolic physical possession. The said orders are under challenge in the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the vendor of the petitioner was in actual physical possession and with the sale deed being executed in his favour, the petitioner is entitled to actual physical possession of the property. It is also contended that the other co-sharer has also sold his share, therefore, the petitioner- vendee is entitled to the actual physical possession of the area, which was in possession of the vendor of the petitioner. I do not find any merit in the said argument raised. The sale in favour of the petitioner is of a share of the total holdings. With the execution of the aforesaid sale deed, the petitioner becomes a co- sharer. A co-sharer, who is out of possession can get actual physical possession only by partition of the suit land by metes and bounds. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or Civil Revision No. 4297 of 2008 [3] material irregularity in the impugned orders, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 23-10-2009 ds