IQBAL SINGH Vs. JAGDISH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No exception can indeed be taken to the impugned order of the execution Court entertaining a second application for execution to enable the decree holder to follow up delivery of symbolic possession of the land in suit by actual possession thereof.

(2.) On October 5, 1982, a decree for possession of land was passed in favour of the decree-holder which was later upheld and affirmed by this Court on November 20, 1984. The decree holder, therafter filed an application for execution of this decree and on May 31, 1986, a warrant of possession was issued directing actual physical possession of the land in suit be given to the decree-holder with police help. The land in suit being 141 kanals and 5 marlas. Actual possession could be given of only 8 kanals and 11 marlas of land as the remaining land was under crops. The execution application was thereafter disposed of by the executing Court with the order, " counsel for the decree-holder present Report received. Possession has been delivered to the decree-holder. File be consigned as fully satisfied."

(3.) Later, on November 22, 1986, the decree-holder moved a second application for execution to obtain actual possession of the remaining land in suit. An objection was raised by the judgment-debtor that this application did not lie as the previous execution application has been consigned to the record room as fully satisfied. This objection was, however, negatived by the Court and this is what is now sought to be challenged in revision.