CR-4348-2022

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.115

CR-4348-2022

Date of Decision: 14.10.2022

Mala Ram and others

.... Petitioners

Versus

Dharampal and others

... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

Present:

Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate and

Mr. Nipun Verma, Advocate

for the petitioners.

***

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

, J. (ORAL)

This revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India against orders of the Executing Court dated 16.09.2022

(Annexures P-10 and P-11), and the subsequent orders dated 24.05.2018 and

01.10.2022 (P-12) on the basis of which aforesaid two orders are stated to

have been passed.

2.

The facts of the case in brief are, on the suit filed by respondent

No.1/plaintiff, preliminary decree was passed by the trial Court on

27.07.2015 for partitioning the suit land. The appeal filed against this

preliminary decree was dismissed on 13.11.2019. Meanwhile, the final

decree of partition was passed on 24.05.2018; ordering to partition the suit

land as per site plan and report submitted by the Local Commissioner which

were to be made part of the final decree. Subsequently, an application for

execution of the decree was filed, in which dispute arose between the

MANINDER

2022.10.19 16:53

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

ordrer/judgment

CR-4348-2022

2

parties, and the Local Commissioner was appointed by the Executing Court

to demarcate the suit land afresh for suggesting the mode of partition. The

Local Commissioner, Bhale Ram Kanungo, appeared before the Court on

22.08.2019 and made a statement that total land in question was 30 kanals,

out of which land measuring 3753 square yards was for passage, and

deficiency of the land measuring 551 square yards could be completed by

including the land of internal walls. In these circumstances, the Local

Commissioner was directed by the Executing Court to visit the spot and

prepare the final draft of partition. On 07.09.2019, he prepared the report

suggesting the mode of partition and submitted it to the Court. Thereupon,

warrant of possession was issued.

4.

It is pertinent to note that the application filed by judgment

debtors for fresh demarcation of the suit land, on account of discrepancies in

the Local Commissioner’s reports, was dismissed by the Executing Court on

09.12.2019. Again, warrant of possession was issued, which could not be

executed for want of police help.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtors submits

that on account of discrepancies between the reports submitted by Local

Commissioner dated 07.09.2019 and the earlier report dated 09.12.2017, he

approached the Assistant Collector, Grade-II, Siwani; who, vide order dated

06.01.2020, directed demarcation of the suit land. As per this demarcation

report, dated 20.01.2020, area of 4 kanals 6 marlas was found less on the

site, and it was recommended to get it corrected under consolidation

proceedings. On the basis of this demarcation report, the petitioner/judgment

debtors again approached the Executing Court by filing the instant

application dated 21.01.2020 for setting aside the final decree dated

MANINDER

2022.10.19 16:53

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

ordrer/judgment

CR-4348-2022

3

24.05.2018. It has been contended that in view of the apparent discrepancies

in the two reports submitted by Local Commissioner, the final decree

becomes inexecutable and, therefore, a fresh demarcation is needed for

partitioning the suit land by setting aside the final decree.

7.

The argument raised by learned counsel deserve to be rejected.

From perusal of the paper book, it is apparent that the earlier application for

demarcation of land and setting aside the order dated 07.09.2019 filed by the

petitioner/judgment debtors, whi