[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vinod Kumar vs Shish Pal (Since Deceased) Through Lrs on 21 January, 2026
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
278
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR-7018-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 21.01.2026
Vinod Kumar ... Petitioner
Versus
Shish Pal (since deceased) through LRs ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for the respondents.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. Present revision petition has been filed challenging the order
dated 20.07.2019 vide which the application filed by the petitioner under
Order XXI Rule 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that one Maha Singh
filed a suit for recovery against defendant-respondent namely, Shish Pal (since
deceased now represented by his legal representatives). Vide judgment and
decree dated 27.01.2011 the suit was decreed in favour of Maha Singh. In
execution, the property comprised in Khewat No.196/180 Khatauni No.247
Rect. No.121 Killa No.8, 11, 12, 13 18 and 19 situated within the revenue
estate of village Patti Kaisth Seth, Teshil and District Kaithal to the extent of
7/761 share of Shish Pal (defendant-respondent) was put to auction through
Court. The petitioner herein was the highest bidder. The property was
auctioned on 20.12.2014 for a total sale consideration of ₹5,80,000/-. The sale
was confirmed vide order dated 03.07.2015 and certificate of sale was issued
on 17.07.2015. It is further the case of the petitioner that since the defendant-
respondent (judgment-debtor) was not handing over possession of the
property, the application was filed under Order XXI Rule 95 CPC for delivery
of possession. Vide the impugned order dated 20.07.2019, the application has
been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition has been
filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the
defendant-respondent herein was in exclusive possession of the shop which
was purchased by the petitioner in an open Court auction hence the Executing
Court has erred in not directing the delivery of possession in favour of the
plaintiff-petitioner. It is further the contention that mutation was also
sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and the property ID was also provided.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the
property which was auctioned as per details of the land auctioned appended
with the petition as Annexure P-1 is only the share to the extent of 7/761
comprised in Khewat No.196/180 Khatauni No.247 Rect. No.121 Killa No.8,
11, 12, 13, 18 and 19 situated within the revenue estate of village Patti Kaish
Seth, Teshil and District Kaithal and no specific khasra number was auctioned.
Since only share in the property was auctioned, which the petitioner purchased
knowingly, hence no physical possession can be delivered and that only
symbolic possession can be delivered to him which been held by the
Executing Court.
5. Heard.
6. In the present case, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that
attachment report dated 15.03.2012 was on the file from which it was gathered
that only 7/761 share of defendant-respondent/judgment-debtor in Rect.
No.121 Killa No.8, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19 was attached. Thereafter, vide order
dated 09.11.2012 warrants of sale were issued. The petitioner herein moved
an application for depositing the price of the auction. The sale was confirmed
on 03.07.2015 and certificate of sale was issued on 17.07.2015. As per
certificate of sale which has been appended with the petition as Annexure P-
1, details of land auctioned reads as under :
"That land comprised in Khewat No.196/180 Khatoni
No.247, Rect No.121 Killa No.8, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19 situated
within the revenue estate of Patti Kaisth Seth Tehsil and
District Kaithal to the extent of 7/761 share.
Sale has been duly confirmed on dated 03.07.2015 by the
order of this Court.
Given under my hand and the sale of this court on this 3 rd
day of July, 2015."
7. A perusal of the above reproduced contents of the certificate of
sale clearly reveal that it was only a share which had been auctioned. The
petitioner was well aware that what has been put to auction was only a share
in the property and there was no specific khasra number which had been
auctioned. Knowingly and being fully aware of the situation the petitioner
opted to purchase the said share. It is a settled law that purchaser of the share
can only be granted symbolic possession qua the property purchased by him
and he would have to file an appropriate application before the Authorities to
seek physical possession by way of partition. The Executing Court vide the
impugned order dated 20.07.2019 held that the petitioner was only entitled to
symbolic possession. Hence, no fault can be found with the impugned order
passed by the Executing Court.
8. In view of the above, present revision petition being devoid of
any merit is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed off.
9. Needless to say, that the petitioner would always be at liberty to
apply for partition in accordance with law.
21.01.2026 ( ALKA SARIN )
jk JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
