SURJIT KAUR Vs. GURDEV SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 23.02.2008 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sirsa and the order dated 1.5.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Tract Court, Sirsa vide which the objections filed by the petitioner -objector have been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the petitioner is a co -sharer in the land in question, as such the petitioner has raised the objection that the warrant of possession for specific khasra number cannot be issued in pursuance to the decree of specific performance. The learned counsel further contends that the decree dated 2.3.2005 is only to the extent of 1/4th share of total land measuring 64 kanals and 6 marlas and numbers have been fully described in decree -sheet dated 2.3.2005 (Annexure P -1). It is the categoric stand of the petitioner that he is a co -sharer and possession of specific khasra number cannot be delivered. The warrant of possession issued by the Executing Court should have been in respect of share, instead of specific khasra. The learned counsel further relies upon Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Daulat : 2002 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 806, Shankar Popat Gaidhani vs. Hiraman Umaji More (Dead) by LRs and others : AIR 2003 SC 1682 and Brahmdeo Choudhary vs. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal : 1997 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 332 to contend that even if there is a decree for specific khasra number of the land, then the same is deemed to be decree from the share and the only remedy before the parties will be to seek partition as per the provisions of law.

(3.) I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.