JUDGMENT
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by Joginder Singh (hereinafter described as the petitioner) directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tarn Taran dated March 6, 1997. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned trial Court held that the decree-holder-petitioner has got symbolic possession of the land; decree is fully satisfied and the objections of the respondents were allowed. It was further held that decree-holder would be at liberty to get actual possession of the land by filing a separate suit.
2. The relevant facts are that on August 3, 1993, the decree-holder had filed a suit for mandatory injunction and joint possession. It was alleged that there was a passage bearing Khasra No. 86(2-16) and recorded in the Jamabandi for the year 1989-90 of village Daburji, Tehsil Tarn Taran. It was further the case of the petitioner that the judgment-debtor Gram Panchayat had made a passage through the land owned by the petitioner bearing Khasra Nos. 78, 79, 84, 85 and 90, instead of Khasra Nos. 86. The passage should have been put on the northern side of Khasra Nos. 90, 89, 88, 101, 102 and 103. It was further the case that the disputed passage bearing Khasra No. 86 is 3 Karams in width, while it has wrongly been demarcated as 4 Karams. It causes difficulty in cultivation of the area. The suit as such was contested by Gram Panchayat and others. It was decreed by the learned Sub-Judge IInd Class, Tarn Taran on April 19, 1995. The Gram Panchayat preferred an appeal, but the same was dismissed on April 1, 1997. The decree-holder petitioner filed an execution application. Warrants of possession was delivered to the decree-holder. The respondents-objectors submitted objections asserting that the decree is not executable as the passage has not been constructed by the Gram Panchayat but the Public Works Department (Punjab Mandi Board). The objections were considered and were dismissed on November 16, 1996. The learned trial Court held that though symbolic possession has been delivered, but the other part of the decree with respect to the proper alignment of the passage is yet to be executed.
3. It was followed by another set of objections, in which it was pointed that if actual possession has not been taken by the decree-holder, he can only file a fresh suit for possession. It was alleged that the report of the Revenue Officer dated September 9, 1996 is on the record, which shows that possession as such has been delivered.
4. The reply was filed by decree-holder petitioner. It was pointed that similar earlier objections had been dismissed and the present objections were not maintainable. It was asserted that partial possession had been delivered.
5. The learned trial Court considered the pleas and held that three months time had been granted to the Gram Panchayat; the Gram Panchayat had failed to correct the alignment of the passage; now the alignment has been corrected and to this effect is the report of the Revenue Officer dated September 9, 1996. Further holding that symbolic possession has been delivered, the learned trial Court concluded that if at all, the petitioner could file a suit for possession. Accordingly, the objections were allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed.
6. In order to appreciate the question in controversy, the reference can well be made to certain basic facts. The petitioner had filed a suit for mandatory injunction and joint possession. The suit as such was contested by Gram Panchayat and others and the trial Court held that civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Mandatory injunction was granted and the Gram Panchayat was directed to correct the alignment of the passage bearing Khasra No. 86 as per Jamabandi D-4, so as to bring the same on northern side of Khasra Nos. 90, 89, 88, 101, 102 and 103, within three months. The respondents being co-sharers were entitled to joint possession of land measuring 3 Kanals 11 Marias from Khasra Nos. 78, 79, 84, 85, 88, 89 and 90. Admittedly, appeal against the said judgment and the said decree has since been dismissed. Subsequently, objections were filed by Salwant Singh, etc. The said objections were decided and dismissed on November 16, 1996. It was further held by the learned trial Court:
“I am of the considered opinion that the objectors cannot be allowed to debar the decree-holders from bearing the fruits of another portion of decree passed in their favour vide judgment dated 19.4.1995 regarding the correction of alignment of passage of Khasra No. 86 so as to bring it on the northern side of Khasra Nos. 90, 89, 88, 101, 102 and 103, so as to bring passage in Khasra No. 86 in its actual position, as revealed by revenue record, discussed in judgment dated 19.4.1995. Thus, objections filed by objectors Salwant Singh etc. stand dismissed being without merits.”
This was followed by another set of objections alleging that symbolic possession has already been taken and report of the Revenue Officer dated September 9, 1996 indicates that decree as such has been satisfied. It is these objections that prevailed with the learned trial Court and it was held that the alignment of the passage had been corrected as per the said report.
7. Perusal of the facts narrated above clearly show that the report of the Revenue Officer on which the learned trial Court relies is of September 9, 1996. Objections that were earlier filed, were dismissed on November 16, 1996. At that time, the learned trial Court held that alignment of the passage has yet to be done.
8. The petitioner’s learned counsel contended that alignment of the passage in terms of the decree has not been made. The said contention of the petitioner in the facts cannot be ignored. As referred to above, the earlier report is of September, 1996. This had been taken note of and when the objections were dismissed in November, 1996, there was no finding that the alignment had been made. In execution, the Court has to obey the decree. There is a specific direction for alignment to be made in the judgment and the decree passed by the learned trial Court. When it has not been complied, then the trial Court was not justified in recording a finding to the contrary. To this effect, the order of the learned trial Court cannot be justified.
9. The revision petition accordingly is allowed and the objection in terms that alignment has been made, is dismissed.