Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 3]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sukhbir Singh And Others vs Jagdish Chand And Others on 2 November, 2011

Author: A.N. Jindal

Bench: A.N. Jindal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


Civil Revision No. 2774 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: November 02, 2011

Sukhbir Singh and others
                                                          .. Petitioners

                       Vs.
Jagdish Chand and others
                                                          .. Respondents
Coram:       Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal

Present:     Mr. Ram Chander, Advocate for the petitioners.

A.N. Jindal, J

This petition assails the order dated 1.12.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Karnal, dismissing the objection petition under Section 47 CPC.

The factual matrix of the case is that a decree for possession by way of premption was passed against the petitioner on 31.7.1993. The appeal preferred against the said judgment was also dismissed on 9.10.2003. The amount of `1,83,650/- being the premption amount was deposited in the court on 15.9.1993 and sought issuance of warrant of possession in terms of the decree. The objectors filed objection petition against the decree stating that they are the co-sharers of the land in question by virtue of sale deed in their favour as they had purchased 216/729 share vide registered sale deed dated 29.5.2000, during the pendency of the premption suit, as such, they have become the co-sharers in the suit land, consequently, no actual and physical possession could be delivered till the land is partitioned.

The said objection petition was contested. The sale deed executed in favour of the objectors is with regard to specific khasra numbers and those are not part of the land for which the warrant of possession is being issued. The objection petition has been filed just to thwart the execution of the decree and delay the execution of warrant of possession.

No grounds to interfere.

Dismissed.

November 02, 2011                                         (A.N. Jindal)
deepak                                                          Judge