Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Judges

    Om Parkash Petitioner v. Risal Singh And Others S

    Amit Rawal, J.:— The petitioner-Judgment Debtor No. 4 is aggrieved of the following order:-

    “Matter taken up in pursuance of previous order for consideration on application for appointment of local commissioner as well as objections to the execution petition. At this stage, parties have submitted that they have no objection if the suit property i.e khasra no. 145 be demarcated by the revenue officials in the presence of bailiff after demarcation of the property, if is found any encroachment, undertook to remove the same and parties be bound by the statements. Accordingly, in terms of the statement of the parties, warrant of possession be issued with specific instruction of bailiff to take assistance of concerned revenue official Halqua Girdawar for demarcation of suit property as comprised in khasra no. 145. Now, to come up on 31.05.2016 for awaiting report.”

    2. The aforementioned order has been passed on the basis of statement suffered by the counsel. On having read the order, this Court confronted Mr. Khurana, Advocate how the revision petition against such order is maintainable. He submits that counsel did not have any power to suffer statement and in support of his submission, he has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh, 2015 AIR (SC) 2867.

    3. He submits that the consequential order of warrant of possession should not have been passed. Courts below should have waited for demarcation report and given time to the parties to examine the same. No provision of objection regarding demarcation has been kept in the order.

    4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and appraised the paper book and of the view that there is some force in the submissions of Mr. Khurana, the trial Court ought not to have immediately ordered for possession. Parties should have been given time to examine the demarcation report. Accordingly, order of warrant of possession is ordered to be deferred. Before such action is taken, the Court will give the parties a chance to go through the demarcation report and as noticed above parties have already suffered the statement that they shall abide by that.

    5. Revision petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.

    6. A copy of this order be given under the signatures of Reader attached to this Court.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Om Parkash Petitioner v. Risal Singh And Others S
    (Aug 19, 2016)