OM PARKASH Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 22.12.2016 (Annexure P-13) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, whereby, the actual possession has not been delivered to the petitioner, who is a decree holder.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disputed property was originally owned by one Sushma Mehta. Respondent-Vinod Kumar purchased disputed property by virtue of sale deed dated 21.04.2004 and as such, has become owner of that property. Thereafter, he entered into an agreement to sell with the present petitioner/plaintiff. Respondent-defendant was not executing sale deed and as such, the suit for specific performance was filed, which was decreed on 103.201 As per decree, the defendant was directed to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff within a period of two months. The petitioner-plaintiff filed execution petition, wherein, a local commissioner was appointed vide order dated 05.05.2016 to get the sale deed executed as per decree sheet. It was done in consonance with Order 21, Rule 34 CPC. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner-plaintiff filed an application for issuance of warrants of possession of property and symbolic possession was ordered to be delivered to him. The possession was not delivered as per order dated 212016 only on the ground that no specific description of property was mentioned. Learned counsel also submits that the boundaries of property were specifically mentioned and map of the plot was also annexed along with details of the boundaries but still the impugned order has been passed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by decision of Honourable the Apex Court in cases Pratibha Singh and another Vs. Shanti Devi Prasad and another 2003(1) RCR (Civil) 316 and Satyawati Vs. Rajinder Singh and another 2014(2) CivilLJ 638.