Civil Revision No. 6165 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6165 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.09.2010 Ravinder Nath Mittal ....Petitioner Versus Om Parkash Mittal and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) The petitioner, by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, has challenged the order dated 8.9.2010 passed by the learned Executing Court, vide which the application moved by the decree-holder for execution of the decree, stands allowed. It is not in dispute, that the suit for partition filed by the respondent-decree-holder has attained finality upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In pursuance of the decree, when the warrant of possession was issued, the same could not be executed because of the obstructions created by the judgment-debtors. Despite specific instructions, judgment-debtors have failed to implement the decree, even though police help was also granted to the decree-holder. It was in this situation that the learned Executing Court passed the impugned order, operative part of which reads as under: - “So in my view the portion abutting road starting from these shops on the North-Eastern corner and Civil Revision No. 6165 of 2010 (O&M) -2- measuring upto 30 feet is to be delivered to the Decree Holder. The back portion measuring 35 fee of this House having road on the Northern Side and street/lane on the western side had to be delivered to the J.D.'s. There should not be any confusion in future that any strip is there of size 4 ½ feet x 47 ½ feet which is to be delivered to J.D. The whole of the property starting from North- Eastern corner upto 30 feet has to be delivered to the Decree Holder or his representative as he is stated to be very old person. In this view this application is hereby allowed and separately warrant of possession is being issued.” Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order firstly on the ground, that the learned Executing Court exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the possession of the property beyond the one decreed in favour of the decree-holder. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the site plan prepared by the Local Commissioner, which forms the part of the decree, shows that there is a small strip of land abutting Mool Raj Road, which was not given to the decree-holder, therefore, it was not open to the decree-holder to claim that portion of the land. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that earlier application moved by the decree-holder was ordered to be dismissed by the learned Executing Court by recording a finding, that it was not open to the learned Executing Court to go behind the decree and grant possession of an area beyond the one which was decreed in his favour. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that in the execution application filed by the decree-holder he has only claimed the red portion, which only could be given to him, therefore the learned Executing Court committed an error in passing the Civil Revision No. 6165 of 2010 (O&M) -3- order referred to above. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that this Court, while dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner, had specifically observed that it is only the red portion which was to be given to the decree-holder. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended, that the learned Executing Court wrongly recorded, that the bailiff was conniving with the judgment-debtors, whereas a specific statement was made that the judgment-debtors were willing to deliver the possession of the red portion, which was given to the decree-holder under the decree. The DDR was also lodged by the bailiff against the decree-holder, for asking area more than the one decreed. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The impugned order clearly shows, that the learned Executing Court clearly held that the decree had to be executed as per final decree passed by the Court. In view of the confusion being created by judgment-debtors in execution of the decree, the learned Executing Court only clarified that the plea raised by the judgment-debtors that there was some strip/verandah in existence, was not correct, as no strip was in existence at the spot. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the judgment-debtors was rejected. It can hardly be believed, that a small strip of 4 ½ feet x 47 ½ feet would be left for the judgment-debtors, when the portion abutting the said area has been given to the decree-holder and the area falling on the other side has been given to the judgment-debtors. There is no link Civil Revision No. 6165 of 2010 (O&M) -4- at all between the area allotted to judgment-debtors and the alleged strip. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that second execution was not competent, is also mis-conceived. There is no bar to move the second execution application if the decree is not satisfied. In this case the learned Executing Court merely clarified the position, and rejected the objections raised by the petitioner by holding, that there is no such verandah in existence as claimed by the judgment- debtors. No ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned Executing Court. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge September 23, 2010 R.S.