IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4039 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision : 09.12.2009 Amar Singh (dead) through his LRs .....Petitioners versus Piara Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Rajinder Kumar Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.I.S.Mann, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed by Amar Singh (since dead and represented through his legal heirs), against the order dated 28.7.2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot, whereby his objections under Order 21 Rules 97 to 103 CPC, have been dismissed by the learned Executing Court, Faridkot. Shorn of the details, it may be mentioned here that Piara Singh-respondent No.1, filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 7.7.1990 in respect of the land measuring 21 kanals-16 marlas, situated within the revenue estate of village Rameana, Tehsil and District Faridkot, against Bachan Singh son C.R. No.4039 of 2005 (O&M) 2 of Harnam Singh (who died during the pendency of the suit and was represented by his two sons and a widow), as well as six sons of late Amar Singh. The suit was decreed on 11.3.1996. The decree-holder sought execution of the decree and got issued warrants of possession for the delivery of possession to him even in respect of the land which was allegedly beyond the share of the judgment- debtors in the joint holding. It is true that the sons of the petitioner-Amar Singh (since deceased), were also the judgment debtors. However, no decree for specific performance was passed qua the share of Amar Singh in the joint holding as he was neither a party to the agreement to sell nor defendant in the suit. The petitioner's grievance is limited to the extent that he is entitled to retain his own share in the joint holding as he was not a party to the decree sought to be executed. In order to substantiate his claim as a co- sharer, the petitioner (since deceased) relies upon the entries in the jamabandies for the years 1987-88 (Annexure P-1 & P-2). Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard at some length and perused the impugned order. Learned counsel for the respondent-decree-holder fairly states that deceased-Amar Singh was not a party to the suit nor his share in the joint-holding was subject matter of the decree. He further submits that the decree-holder is entitled to seek execution of the decree after excluding the share of deceased-Amar Singh, if any, in the joint holding. C.R. No.4039 of 2005 (O&M) 3 In view of the above mentioned stand taken on behalf of the respondent-decree-holder, this revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 28.7.2005 is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Executing Court, Faridkot, to determine the share of the deceased-Amar Singh, if any, in the joint holding as the same was not subject matter of the decree dated 11.3.1996. After excluding that share of deceased-Amar Singh, the subject decree shall be executed forthwith against the other judgment debtors. The entire exercise shall be undertaken by the learned Executing Court, Faridkot, within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Dasti. 09-12-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE