PHALIA Vs. RAJINDER PAL SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner -defendant No. 4 restrict his claim in the revision petition to the impugned order dated 12.09.2013 (Annexure P -5), as his client does not have any objection to the direction contained in the order dated 24.05.2013 (Annexure P -3). Accordingly, order dated 24.05.2013 is upheld. Mr. Rajender Chhokkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner -defendant No. 4 submits that as per the judgment and decree dated 24.05.2001 the suit of the respondent -plaintiff was partly decreed to the effect that sale deed dated 08.01.1996 was held, not binding upon plaintiff and as well as petitioner -defendant No. 4 as both of them have been treated as co -sharers. Decree Holder -respondents after getting their names entered into revenue record, would have to seek partition and not in a manner and mode as has been chosen and reflected in the impugned order.

(2.) Mr. N.D. Achint, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent -Decree Holder submits, that plaintiffs have a right to seek partition of the property until and unless revenue record in pursuance to the judgment and decree is not correct. He further submits that there is no illegality and perversity in the order dated 12.09.2013, whereby the police help has been granted for, as the petitioner -defendant No. 4 was causing hindrances in raising construction.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for parties and appraised the paper book.