Narotam Chand & ANR v. Sant Bachan Singh & ANR

CR No.2184 of 2016 {1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2184 of 2016 Date of decision:28.11.2016 Narotam Chand and another ... Petitioners Vs.

Sant Bachan Singh and another ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:- Mr. O.P.Goyal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sunita Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. C.M.Munjal, Advocate for the respondent(s).

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral) The present revision petition is at the instance of the petitionerdefendant in civil suit titled as Sant Bachan Singh vs. Nartotam Chand and another, whereby, on the application moved by the respondent-plaintiff for demarcation of the property, Local Commissioner has been appointed. Mr. O.P.Goyal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Sunita Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner-defendant submits that since the suit property is regarding khasra No.746 and the Local Commissioner may not confine his report qua aforementioned khasra number, whereas, prior to filing of the aforementioned suit, there was litigation between the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner vis-a-vis khasra Nos.751/1 and 752/2 and therefore, status of the parties are of co-sharers, resulting into Savita 2016.12.03 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

CR No.2184 of 2016 {2} decretal of the suit which had attained finality. In execution application, possession has been claimed. The grievance of the petitioner is that excess area has been taken into possession and therefore, the aforementioned suit. He further submits that his client would not be averse in case the order under challenge is maintained with a modification that Local Commissioner shall measure all the three khasra numbers, i.e.,746, 751/1 and 751/2 and prepared a site plan for adjudication of the lis. The aforementioned fact is not opposed by Mr. C.M.Munjal, Advocate for the respondents.

In view of the consensus arrived at between the learned counsel for the parties to the lis, I am of the view that revision petition is disposed of with a modification in the impugned order that instead of demarcating only khara no.746, Local Commissioner shall demarcate khasra numbers 751/1 and 751/2 along with khasra number 746 and also prepared the site plan, in accordance with law.

Revision petition stands disposed of.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE November 28, 2016 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Savita 2016.12.03 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh