In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 6862 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: March 18, 2009 Gurmit Singh ... Petitioner Vs. Kuldip Kaur ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Ms. Balvinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J This is a petition under Section 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 4.10.2008 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kapurthala, whereby the Court dealt with the application under Section 144 C.P.C. like a suit and framed the issues. The factual background of the case is that the respondent had executed a sale deed dated 20.12.1999 and delivered the possession of the property to the petitioner in pursuance to the said sale deed. However, she filed a suit No.382 dated 5.12.2000 against the petitioner. The trial court decreed the suit vide judgment dated 29.10.2004. While holding that the sale deed was forged one and the respondent had never put the petitioner into possession. The said judgment and decree dated 29.10.2004 was challenged in the appeal. The Appellate Court while holding that the possession of the suit property was delivered by the respondent to the petitioner and he is the owner of the said property, accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment passed by the trial court. The said judgment dated 29.4.2005 was challenged by way of Regular Second Appeal. However, this court vide judgment dated 7.7.2006 (Annexure P-3) dismissed the appeal. By virtue of the dismissal of the Regular Second Appeal of the respondent the judgment and decree dated 29.4.2005 (Annexure P2) passed by the First Appellate Court attained finality and the petitioner having been Civil Revision No. 6862 of 2008 (O&M) -2- *** dispossessed during the pendency of the lis was entitled for the restitution of the possession of the suit property. On the basis of the aforesaid two judgments, the petitioner moved an application under Section 144 C.P.C. for restitution of the possession to him, wherein the trial court instead of deciding the application on the basis of the judgment and decree dated 29.4.205 (Annexure P2) and the judgment dated 7.7.2006 (Annexure P3) passed by this Court has started de-novo trial by framing issues and requiring the parties to lead evidence. Right of possession was to be determined from the perusal of three judgments i.e. Trial Court, First Appellate Court, the Second Appellate Court and other documents and restitution of the possession could be made on that basis but the court fell in error while framing issues. The application under Section 144 C.P.C. could be decided in a summary manner as the possession of the petitioner has already been delivered by the courts and it is specific plea that he was forcibly dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. Under these circumstances, this revision petition is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the trial court is directed to decide the case afresh according to law summarily. Since the court appears to have not applied its mind and passed such order for the reasons best known to him, learned District & Sessions Judge, Kapurthala is directed to transfer the case to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Kapurthala on 15.4.2009. Copy of this order be sent to the learned District & Sessions, Judge, Kapurthala. March 18, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge