Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhagat Singh And Anr vs Nahanti (Since Deceased) Thr Lr ... on 8 July, 2022
CR-2586 of 2019 [ 1 ]
274
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-2586 of 2019
Date of Decision: 08.07.2022
Bhagat Singh & Another......................................... Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Nahanti and another.................................... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
...
Present: Mr. Parvesh Mor, Advocate
for the petitioners.
...
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.
The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India for setting aside of the impugned judgment/decree
dated 29.08.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, and the
impugned order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Rohtak, vide which application under Section 144 CPC filed by
the petitioners has been dismissed.
Learned counsel submits that both the courts below while
passing the impugned judgments/orders have acted contrary to the settled
law which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. He further submits that the
father of the petitioners had obtained actual physical possession of the plots
No. 28/1, 143/2 and 225 (suit property) through a Local Commissioner
during the execution proceedings subsequent to the final decree dated
09.12.82/04.10.1983 in a suit for possession by way of partition. Learned
1 of 3
CR-2586 of 2019 [ 2 ]
counsel further submits that the respondents filed a suit for possession by
way of partition of the suit property against the petitioners. However, during
its pendency, an execution application was filed on 28.04.1993 on false
allegations and by distorting facts. The respondents after misleading the
court, obtained warrants of possession, and consequently, possession of suit
property was illegally taken by them. Learned counsel submits that there
was no order of amendment of final decree, therefore, no amendment in
decree sheet could be made in the absence of the petitioners, thus, their
dispossession was illegal and they were entitled to the relief of restitution of
possession.
Heard and perused the relevant material on record.
Admittedly, shamlat land was partitioned in a suit for
possession by way of partition vide preliminary decree dated 04.01.1977
and final decree dated 09.12.1982. Respondent No.1, being a proprietor of
the village, also had a share in the shamlat land.
The petitioner No.1 while stepping into the witness box
categorically admitted that he along with petitioner No.2 had purchased
agricultural land from the mother of the respondents. Subsequently, a suit
for pre-emption was instituted by the respondents which was decreed in
their favour as a result of which their share in the shamlat land increased in
proportion to the land so pre-empted by them.
After the aforesaid decree of pre-emption, the respondents
applied for possession of their share in the shamlat land in the court
concerned and eventually the possession of the plots which were earlier
allotted to the petitioners, after their re-numbering, was handed over to the
respondents. It would be relevant to point out here that the possession of the
2 of 3
CR-2586 of 2019 [ 3 ]
plots was delivered through a Local Commissioner, in compliance of court
orders. Hence, it cannot be said that the possession was wrongfully obtained
by the respondents.
In the facts and circumstances, the instant revision petition is
devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
( MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
08.07.2022 JUDGE
rupi
Note: Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable: Yes / No
3 of 3
