High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCR/7798/2018disposed of

Bimla Devi v. Sewa Singh

2018-12-19Mrs. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul2 pages

C. R. No. 7798 of 2018 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Sr. No. 222 Case No. : C. R. No. 7798 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision : December 19, 2018 Bimla Devi ....

Petitioner vs.

Sewa Singh ....

Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL.

* * * Present :

Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

* * * DEEPAK SIBAL , J.

(Oral) :

Through the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks issuance of a direction to the respondent to restore possession of House No. 71, Ram Nagar, Garha Road, Jalandhar measuring 06 marlas to the petitioner with a further direction to the respondent not to interfere in the possession of 02 marlas of the suit property presently in possession of the petitioner. A further prayer has been made for directing the Appellate Court to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 04.08.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar (for short - the Executing Court) dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner in the execution proceedings instituted by MONIKA 2019.01.07 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the respondent for executing the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2016.

C. R. No. 7798 of 2018 (O&M) On being put to notice, Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent and states that he has express instructions from his client that during the pendency of the afore-referred appeal filed by the petitioner which is pending before the Appellate Court, his client shall not interfere in the possession of the petitioner over 02 marlas of land which is part of the suit property comprising of 06 marlas. He further states that during the pendency of the petitioner's appeal, his client shall also not alienate the suit property.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the above statement made by learned counsel for the respondent satisfies the grievance raised by the petitioner in the present petition. In view of the above consensus arrived at between the parties, the present petition is disposed of after directing the parties to remain bound by their respective statements made by them before this Court with a further direction to the Appellate Court to decide the petitioner's appeal filed by her against the order dated 04.08.2018 passed by the Executing Court within a period of three months from the date next fixed before the Appellate Court, in accordance with law.

( DEEPAK SIBAL ) JUDGE December 19, 2018 monika Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No.

MONIKA 2019.01.07 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document