DEVINDER SINGH Vs. BHUPINDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . A decree was passed against the revision-petitioner (hereafter called JD) for demolition of certain structure which he had raised on a portion of Khasra No. 1630 min, measuring 9 bighas 11 biswas during the pendency of the suit, as shown in the report Ext.PW4/A of the Local Commissioner and the plan Ext.PW4/B attached with the said report of the Local Commissioner. Appeals filed against the decree by the JD in the Court of District Judge as also in this Court were dismissed. The DH then filed an execution petition for the demolition of the structure. Objections were filed by the JD.

(2.) IT was alleged that the decree was for demolition of structure standing on a portion of Khasra No. 1630 min, measuring 9 bighas 11 biswas and that as a matter of fact, Khasra No. 1630 was a big number having 2 min numbers, both assigned Khasra Nos. 1630 min and that while one number measured 9 bighas 11 biswas, with respect to which suit had been filed and decree passed, the other measured 3 bighas and that structure which was sought to be demolished by execution of the decree, stood on the second portion, measuring 3 bighas.

(3.) AS regards the first point, a reading of the decree passed by the trial Court and as upheld by the two Appellate Courts, leaves no doubt that it (the decree) is for demolition of that structure which stands on Khasra No.1630 measuring 9 bighas 11 biswas, because the description of the said number and the area is given in the upper part of the decree and in the operative part of the decree, the same is referred to as the suit land. The operative part further reads that the structure which is to be demolished from the suit land is shown in the report Ext.PW4/A and the plan Ext.PW4/B, attached with the aforesaid report. The report was submitted by the Local Commissioner, who was appointed by the trial Court during the pendency of the suit. At no point of time did the JD plead that the structure with respect to which the decree had been sought or was passed, stood on the other min number measuring 3 bighas and not on the min number measuring 9 bighas 11 biswas. The copy of the judgment of the trial Court substantiates this view. It is now too late in the day for the JD to say that the structure sought to be demolished does not stand on that min number which measures 9 bighas 11 biswas but on the other min number which measures 3 bighas.