Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM KUMAR versus VISHAL & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Kumar v. Vishal & Ors - CR-5210-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 8296 (10 October 2006)

C.R.No.5210 of 2006 [1]

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.5210 of 2006

Date of decision : 16.10.2006.

Ram Kumar ........Petitioner

versus

Vishal and others .......Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.
Present : Mr.Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

* * *

ORDER

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)

The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 28.8.2006, passed by the learned Executing Court, whereby the Objections filed by the petitioner in respect of execution of the decree dated 21.4.1999, affirmed by the First Appellate Court on 16.10.2002, were dismissed.

Plaintiff's suit for possession of land measuring 8 marlas out of land measuring 2 kanals 14 marlas, was decreed by the learned trial Court while holding that the defendants have encroached upon 2 marlas of land as per the report of the Local Commissioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in execution of the decree, only symbolic possession can be taken by the decree holder as the actual possession can be delivered after the partition of the joint property. However, I do not find any substance in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The suit for possession was decreed in respect of specific land. Said decree has been affirmed in appeal C.R.No.5210 of 2006 [2]

as well. Since the decree is of specific portion demarcated on the report of the Local Commissioner, I do not find any substance in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Consequently, I do find any illegality and irregularity in the order passed by the learned Executing Court, which may warrant interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.

Dismissed in limine.

(HEMANT GUPTA)

October 16, 2006. JUDGE

*mohinder


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.