I N THE HlGH v. Pet it ioner

had challengedt he sam e before t his Court vide CR Noe 6967 of 2009 I n Rawat Seem a 2013.01.11 11: 44 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 422 1 Eivil Revision Nol962 of 2010 3 1 L 0 C I C5 I Z 08 m wo Z which he was givent he libert y t o Ole fresh obj ect ionsbefore t he execut ingcourt e Plot Noe 149 is st ill j ointof t he part iesand cont inues t o bear t he sam e num ber in t he revenue record t ill dat e while t he decrce holder has flled t he civil suit showingt he suit propert y as Killa NOe 14914 killa Noe 14914has been bifurcat ed in som e part it ionproceedings carving out separat e part s but t he aI legedpart it ionwas effect in t he revenue becom e records and as such t he part it ionproceedingshave useless Thus obj ect orPrem Singhwho was not part y in t he civil suit and Mohinder SinghJD has becom e t he cosharer in t he suit propert yand t hus t he warrant of possessionhas becom e incapableof execut ion because t he onlyway t o getpossessionis by way of part it ion Decree holder has resist ed t hese by OI ingreply and aliegingt herein by way of preI im inaryobj ect ionst hat t he obj ect ions are not m aint ainabI e and t he obj ect orshave no I ocus st andi t o Ole t he sam e and t hat t he obj ect ionsare abuse of process of I aw On m erit s it is allegedt hat t he pI east aken by t he obj ect orln t he obj ect ionpet it ion were also t aken by t he obj ect orNo2 in his separat eobj ect ionpet it ionearlier flled by him which has bcen decided by t his Court vide order dat ed 109e20090No revI Sion pet it ionwas by Prem SinghObj ect orNo2 and as such he has not been givenI ibert y t o file t he fresh obj ect ionpet it ionagain before t he court Prem Singh was not a part y t o t he suit as he was not havingany int erest in t he suit land at t he t im e of passingof t he decree and even at t he t im e ofOI ingof t he execut ion pet it ionePrem Singhhas not const ruct ed any house in t he Rawat Seem a 2013.01.11 11: 44 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 423 J t ivil Revision Noe2962 of 2010 e 1 1 4 e 1 0 C I C5 I Z C I 08 7 Z Qm propert y in disput eeMohinder Singhwas found in unaut horized in t he I and in quest ionas per decree dat ed 2322005 and as such t he allegedsale deeds I ll favour of Prem Sirighare of and did not confer any right t o Prem SingheThe obj ect ionsraised by Mohinder Singhregardingt he land purchasedby him vide sale decds dat ed 7601977and 11501977have been adj udicat ed by t his Court and t he sam e have been dism issed vide order dat ed 101002009 on m erit se The plot Noe 149 had alreadybeen part it ioned vide Sannad Taksim dat ed 161964 and lll t he I ightof which t he suit flI ed by t he decree holder and was accordinglycont est ed by j udgm entdebt or obj ect edMohinder Singht ill t he decision of t he appeal by t he court learned Addit ional Dist rict Judge Even ot herwise Prem singhobj ect orNol has him self adm it t ed t he part it ion of t he plotNo 149 and as per his own averm ent s he had purchasedt he share of plot Noe 14912rnin Sout h and had also purchasedt he share of plot Noe 14911vide t wo separat esale deedseThe non incorporat ionof t he part it ionof pI otNoe 149 in t he revenue record has not bearingon t he right sof t he decree holdere The learned t rial Court aft er hearingt he I earned counsel t he part ies dism issed t he obj ect ionsas frivolous vexat ious and int ended t o delayt he execut ion of t he decree and t he sam e need not be put t o t rial by fram ingissues as t he sam e would am ount t o an abuse of t he process of t he Court e Rawat Seem a 2013.01.11 11: 44 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Feeling dissat isOed wit h t he above said orders JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 t he I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 424 4Civil Revision No2962 of 2010 5 1 Q 0 C I C5 I Z I 08 Ym Z has flled t he inst ant revision pet it ion I have heard I earned counsel t he part ies and have m inut elygone t hrought he records oft he case wit h t heir help The I earned counsel for t he pet it ionethas subm it t ed t hat decree of possessionwaS lll favour ofHari SinghpI aint iffand in favour of Lachhm an Singh Zile Singh his brot hers who were proform a in t he suit for The obj ect orhas purchasedt he share of I egalrepresent at ivesof Zile Singht hroughsale deed ExeP40 This sale deed was in favour of Prem Singhand t he presentpet it ionin equalshare and is in respectof 1 m arla ie 1178share of kiI la No9 Out of t he sam e khasra num ber t he ot her legalheir of Zile Singhhave execut ed sale deed ExePS in respectof 1 m arI a 1eee 30 4 square yard which is 1138 share of 3 kanals 18 m arlas of I and out of Rect e kiI I a N001490 AgainLachhm an Singh has sold 2 m arlas of I and equalt o 70 square yardswhich is 2178share of I and m easuring3 kanals 18 m arlas of Rect and Khasra So I ll t his m anner t he obj ect orhas becom e owner of 3I z m arlas of I and out of Rect e Killa Noe1490481 and no m ln num ber is allot t ed So t he prayer has been m ade for accept anceof reVlSlOn pet it ionand for st Ting t he possession of t he suit lande Learned counsel t he support edt he j udgm entoft he t rial Court I have given m y t hought fulconsiderat ion t o t he rival subm issions m ade by bot h t he sides and have gone t hrought he records Rawat Seem a 2013.01.11 11: 44 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 425 2 e 1 Civil Revision Nol962 of 2010 6 of t he casee From t he perusalof t he j udgm entof Civil Judge Senior Divisionldat ed 232005 is revealed t hat sim ilar obj ect ionst hat Khasra is not m ent ioned in t he revenue ecord was t aken and t hat obj ect ionwas repelledbyt he Civil JudgeSeniorDivisionlvide said j udgm ent eThe obj ect orflled appealagainstt he said j udgm ent dat ed 23022005 and I earned Dist rict Judge vide j udgm entdat ed 1582005 dism issedt he appealeAgainnot accept ingt he obj ect iont hat Killa No1491471does not exist e The Court has held t hat t since t he pet it ionerhas not purchasedany part ofKhasra 1 0 C I C I Z and on t hat account t he sale deeds ExseP4 t o P I egalrightin respectof khasra N0149114171 I 08 do not confer any One anot her circum st ance which m ilit at esagainstt he case is t hat t here is a recit al in t he sale deed Exs VA7 Z of t he P4 P5 and Pe6 t hat possessionhas been delivered t hrought hose sale of Khasra No1493181 However from t he perusalof t he j udgm entdat ed 23022005 passedby Civil Judge Senior Divisionland dat ed 1582005 passedby I earned Dist rict Judge Sonepatit I S revealed t hat possessionof Khasra was alreadywit h obj ect olet it ionere So t he Ondingof t he Execut ingCourt t hat no part of Khasra No491471 has been purchasedby t he plaint iff carnes weight and does not call for any int erference and eonsequent lyt he reVlSlOn pet it ionis wit hout any m erit and t he sam e Rawat Seem a 2013.01.11 11: 44 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh st ands dism issed JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 426 Civil Revision Noe2962 of 2010 7 A copy of t his j udgm entbe sent t o t he t rial Court for st rict May2742010 Sv 1 JUDGE 17925rr Cpp 1r Q 0 C 0nr I C5 Z Q I 08 7 Z Om Rawat Seem a 2013.01.11 11: 44 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document