Advocates:
['JR MITTAL', 'A K MITTAL', 'ARUN JAIN', 'K K GARG']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR No. 3581 of 2000

Date of decision:- 27.9.2010

Chand Singh and others

......petitioners

vs.

Dalbara Singh and others

......respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

Present: -

Mr. J.R. Mittal, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advocate and

Mr. Kashmir Singh, Advocate

for the petitioners

Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate

for respondents.

HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL)

Challenge in the revision petition is to the order passed by

learned Executing Court on 29.5.2000 whereby the execution sought on the

basis of preliminary decree was declined for the reasons that final decree

has not been granted.

In a suit for redemption, learned trial Court granted the decree

on 7.2.1986. The said decree was affirmed by the Appellate Court on

3.12.1990. Defendants were to deliver the possession to the plaintiff on

payment of Rs. 32,000/-. In an appeal filed by defendants, the learned First

appellate Court ordered the respondent to deposit an amount of Rs. 42,700/-

on account of improvements on land effected by the defendants at the time

of taking over the possession by way of redemption. The plaintiff-petitioner

deposited the said amount of Rs. 42,700/- on 9.2.1994 and after such

deposit sought possession of the mortgaged property. It is on such

application, learned Executing Court has passed an order impugned in the

present revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that in view of the

judgment reported as AIR 2003 (SC) 1017 Achaldas Durgaji Oswal

(Dead) through L.Rs vs. Ramvilas Gangabisan Heda (Dead) through

L.Rs, the petitioner shall move an application for preparation of the final

decree and seek possession in accordance with law thereafter.

I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the

order passed by learned Executing Court holding that without final decree,

the plaintiff cannot seek possession of the suit property. But in view of the

liberty sought, the present revision petition is dismissed with liberty to the

petitioners to initiate the proceedings for the preparation of the final decree

in accordance with law.

(HEMANT GUPTA)

JUDGE

27.9.2010

preeti