GURJANT SINGH Vs. HARBANS KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-judgment debtor-defendant is aggrieved of the impugned orders dated 6.5.2014 and 16.7.2014 whereby warrant of possession has been issued in pursuance to the execution and registration of the sale deed as per order dated 6.5.2014.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the respondents-plaintiffs instituted a civil suit bearing No. 299 of 1978 seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 28.6.1978. In the aforementioned proceedings, no relief for possession was sought. The trial court vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.1979 passed the following order:-

(3.) In pursuance to the aforementioned finding, it is evident that no relief qua possession was sought yet the decree holder filed an execution petition seeking possession. The petitionerdefendant did not come forward for execution and registration of the sale deed, accordingly Local Commissioner was appointed for execution of sale deed which is reflected in the order dated 6.5.2014. As a natural corollary possession was sought but the execution petition has been dismissed. It is in these circumstances the present revision petition has been filed. In support of her contentions she has relied upon the judgment in Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Daulat, 2001 AIR(SC) 3712 to contend that as per proviso to Section 22 (2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 enables the court at any stage to amend such terms as it may consider appropriate including the claim for possession. Since the claimant sought relief only with regard to specific relief of agreement to sell without there being any claim of possession the executing court cannot issue warrant of possession in the absence of decree for possession.