IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Paramjeet . . . . Pe$$oner Vs.

Ranbir and Others . . . . Respondents ****

Reserved on: 15.05.2025 Pronounced on: 19.05.2025 ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajinder Goel, Mr. Gautam Kaile, Mr. Ashwani K. An#l, Ms. Poonam Saroya, Advocates for the pe##oner.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This revision pe##on under Ar#cle 227 of the Cons#tu#on of India has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 05.02.2025 (Annexure P-21) passed by the learned Addi#onal District Judge, sonepat, whereby the appeal against the trial court’s order dated 19.02.2024 (Annexure P-20) dismissing the pe##oner’s objec#ons was rejected. The pe##oner also challenges the order dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure P-22), whereby the Execu#ng Court—learned Addi- #onal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kharkhoda, sonepat—issued warrants of pos- session in Execu#on No.5 of 2021. Further relief is sought for a declara#on that the decree dated 22.04.2011 (Annexure P-11) was obtained by fraud and con-

cealment, rendering it a nullity and non-executable in law.

2.1 A perusal of the paper-book reveals that Ra# Ram son of Mange Ram, claiming ownership and possession of plot No.39/458 measuring 136 sq. yds. situated in the Abadi Deh of Village Mandori, Tehsil and District sonepat, filed a suit for possession. He claimed that the said plot was alloBed to his father Mange Ram in Civil Suit No.54/1958 decided on 28.03.1960 #tled ‘Tek Chand etc. v. Risala etc.’ by the learned Sub-Judge 1st Class, sonepat. It was averred that his father had laid the founda#on and used the land for storing fuel etc. (Gitwar). The defendants were said to be owners in possession of ad- joining plot No.38 measuring 633 sq. yds. This ownership was previously held in Civil Suit No.393 of 98/2000 concerning a permanent injunc#on over plot No.38, upheld up to this High Court in RSA N: 3891 of 2005 decided on 27.02.2006. Plain#ff Ra# Ram alleged that during his temporary absence, the defendants encroached upon plot No.39/458 and included it in their adjoining plot No.38 by raising construc#on. Accordingly, he sought possession.

2.2 In response, the defendants (who included present pe""oner’s father namely, Sardar Singh) claimed that as per decree dated 28.03.1960, plot No.39/458 was originally alloBed to Bharat Singh son of Jug Lal, while Mange Ram was alloBed plot No.465/442, based on oral possession claims. It was fur- ther submiBed that aGer Bharat Singh’s death, his legal heirs sold the land to Suresh, from whom the defendant Sardar Singh purchased 17 G. of land, which was then included in plot No.38. The defendants did not dispute the earlier li#g-

a#on regarding plot No.38.

2.3 AGer the framing of issues and recording of evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plain#ff on 22.04.2011 (Annexure P-11). The appeal filed by the defendant Sardar Singh was dismissed by the first Appel- late Court on 08.05.2012. RSA No.3911 of 2012 filed by defendant was dis- missed by this High Court on 04.03.2020 (Annexure P-13). The review pe##on was dismissed on 18.05.2024. Subsequent SLPs and writ pe##ons before the Hon’ble Supreme Court were similarly dismissed.

2.4 During the execu#on of the decree, objec#ons filed by the judg- ment debtor (JD), who is the predecessor-in-interest of the present pe##oner, were dismissed vide order dated 19.02.2024 (Annexure P-20) by the Execu#ng Court. The appeal against the dismissal of objec#ons was also rejected vide im- pugned order dated 05.02.2025 (Annexure P-21). Warrants of possession were issued, and possession has already been delivered to the decree-holder.

3.1 Challenging the impugned orders, learned senior counsel for the pe##oner argued that in the original par##on decree dated 28.03.1960 in Civil Suit No.54 of 1958, plot No.39/458 measuring 136 sq. yds. was alloBed to Bharat Singh, and not to Mange Ram. Reference is made to the relevant nakal khatoni