IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.5345 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of decision: August 7, 2009.
Maya Devi & Anr.
...Petitioner(s)
v.
Surinder Kumar & Ors.
...Respondent(s)
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Shri Jitender Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Shri Dinesh Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
ORDER
Surya Kant, J. – (Oral):
This revision petition is directed against the order dated
8.9.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur-
cum-Executing Court whereby a local commissioner has been appointed to
“get the construction of wall in accordance with the decree and judgment
dated 19.2.03” so as to enable the court to pass the final decree.
The undisputed facts are that the respondent-plaintiff and his
brother late Baldev Kumar were joint owners of the subject property. The
deceased brother of the respondent-plaintiff is now represented by his legal
representatives, namely, the present petitioners. The respondent filed a suit
for partition which was decreed and a preliminary decree was passed on
19.2.2003. The said decree has attained finality. As per the decree, the
respondent-plaintiff is “entitled to ½ share of suit property fully detailed and
described in the head note-A of the plaint on the southern side, whereas
defendants No.1 to 4 are entitled to other ½ share situated on the side of
stair case and defendants No.5 to 9 are entitled to remaining portion of the
total suit property measuring 85 feet X 20 feet”.
The short grievance of the petitioners is that the local
commissioner appointed by the Executing Court should have been
authorized to act within the parameters of Order 26 Rule 14 CPC, inasmuch,
as the executing court ought to have directed him to firstly inspect the site
and thereafter submit a report.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering
the procedure contemplated under Order 26 Rule 14 CPC, the revision
petition is partly allowed and while modifying the impugned order, it is
directed that firstly the local commissioner shall visit the site and
identify/mark the points where the wall is to be raised in order to effect
partition of the property as per the preliminary decree dated 19.2.2003. He
shall submit a report to this effect to the Executing Court to enable the
parties to submit their objections, if any. Once the points are earmarked, the
necessary consequence of raising the wall on those marked points, shall
follow.
The Executing Court shall do the needful as early as possible
and preferably within three months.
Dasti.
August 7, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge