Judgment

Mrs. Alka Sarin, J.

The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.07.2017 dismissing the objections filed by the petitioners herein.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that he has also in the present case challenged the order dated 09.02.2017 vide which his application for amendment of the objection petition was dismissed. Though in the heading of the revision petition the challenge is to the order dated 27.07.2017, however, in the prayer clause the challenge is only to the order dated 09.02.2017. Taking it to be a typographical mistake at best, this Court is dealing with both the orders in the present revision petition.

3. The present lis has a chequered history and hence detailed facts need to be noticed. The respondent, in the present case, i.e. Dr. Jatinder Kumar Narula filed a suit against Jagdish Kumar son of Ram Murti and Raj Dulari wife of Ram Murti for declaration to the effect that he (the plaintiff) was owner in possession of Kothi No.46, Passey Road, Patiala and the land appurtenant thereto comprised in Khasra Nos.201 to 208 and further for permanent injunction. The suit was decreed in favour of Dr. Jatinder Kumar Narula (plaintiff therein) vide judgment and decree dated 05.02.1993 (Annexure P-2). During the pendency of the suit, Raj Dulari executed an agreement to sell dated 31.07.1988 qua 1 biswa of land comprising of the suit property herein. Thereafter, a sale deed dated 27.08.1988 was executed qua 2 biswa of land in favour of the petitioner herein by Raj Dulari. Though the principle of lis pendens would apply since the sale was made during the pendency of the suit, however, a second suit for possession was preferred by the respondent - Dr. Jatinder Kumar Narula - and his brother, Harinder Kumar Narula against the petitioners herein. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.2001 (Annexure P-1). Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal was preferred which was dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.11.2003 (Annexure R-5 appended with CM-24967-CII-2019). Still not satisfied, a regular second appeal being RSA No.2460 of 2004 was filed which was dismissed vide order dated 14.03.2005 (Annexure R-4 appended with CM-24967-CII-2019). Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.14264 of 2005 was filed challenging the order dated 14.03.2005 passed by this Court in RSA No.2460 of 2004. The said Special Leave Petition was also dismissed vide order dated 29.07.2005 (Annexure R-2 appended with CM-24967-CII-2019). Thereafter, an execution petition (Annexure P-3) was preferred by the respondent herein. In the execution petition, an application was filed by the petitioners herein for appointment of a revenue official to demarcate the property before the possession could be handed over. The said application was dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated 26.08.2013. Aggrieved by the said order, a revision petition being CR No.7367 of 2013 was filed which was dismissed vide order dated 16.05.2016 (Annexure R-1 appended with CM-24967-CII-2019) holding as under :

“Perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court would make it evident that the decree-holders/plaintiffs filed the suit for possession in regard to 152 sq. yds. of land (91 ft. x 15 ft.) i.e. 02 biswas out of Khasra No.203 that has been depicted in the site plan attached with the plaint situated in Village Lehal, Tehsil and District Patiala. Any dispute with regard to identity of the suit property was required to be raised b