NARESH KUMAR Vs. SMT. ROSHNI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 03.10.2011 (Annexure P -5) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Gohana whereby on the basis of objections filed by respondents no. 1 and 2, issues have been framed. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that a civil suit No. 182 of 2006 instituted on 28.02.2006 and decided on 11.10.2007 was filed by the petitioner and his brother for partition of the suit property with consequential relief of permanent injunction. A preliminary decree for partition of the suit property was passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Gohana and thereafter the final decree was passed on 4.2.2009 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Gohana. During the execution of the decree, respondents no. 1 and 2 -objectors filed objections that they are in possession of the suit land and are bona fide purchasers for consideration. On the basis of those objections, issues have been framed vide impugned order dated 03.10.2011 (Annexure P -5). Hence, this revision petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 -objectors has vehemently contended that Dharampal sold the land to Smt. Krishana wife of Naresh and Smt. Luxmi wd/o Satyadev in equal shares vide registered sale deed No. 2184 dated 4.8.2006 and the possession of the land was delivered to them and the mutation was also sanctioned on 3.10.2006. The said purchasers had sold the land to the objectors vide registered sale deed no. 3139 dated 9.10.2006 and possession was also delivered to the objectors and mutation also stands sanctioned on 10.04.2007. They are bona fide purchasers for valuable sale consideration, therefore, the issues have been rightly framed by the learned Executing Court. Without framing of the issues, plea of respondents no. 1 and 2 -objectors cannot be appreciated.