L.N.Mittal, J. - (1.) FALIA alias Phalia, judgment debtor (JD) No. 1 has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 8.10.2010, Annexure P/3 passed by the executing court i.e. learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon, thereby dismissing objection petition Annexure P/1 filed by JD no. 1 in execution petition Annexure P/4 filed by respondents no. 1 and 2/decree holders (DHs) against petitioner and respondent no. 3 Raghunath (JD no. 2).
(2.) SUIT filed by Mussadi Singh since deceased father & predecessor of decree holders was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 21.8.2002, Annexure P/5 holding that the said plaintiff is co-owner/cosharer in joint possession of 12 kanals land of rectangle no. 50 and is also co-owner/co-sharer in exclusive possession of 18 kanals 12 marlas land of rectangle no. 60 as detailed in the judgment and decree sheet. Accordingly, defendants i.e. JDs were restrained from interfering in exclusive possession of the plaintiff over land of rectangle no. 60 except by way of partition. Decree holders in their execution petition alleged that JDs are violating injunction order by demanding crops from the decree holders on the basis of money and muscle power. JD no. 1 in his objection petition Annexure P/1 referred to some other judgment and decree and some other lis and resisted the execution of impugned decree Annexure P/5. Learned executing court vide impugned order Annexure P/3 dismissed the objection petition filed by JD No. 1 who has, therefore, filed this revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Counsel for JD-petitioner contended that he never violated the decree. However, it has not been so specifically pleaded in objection petition Annexure P/1.
(3.) FACED with the aforesaid situation, counsel for the petitioner stated that JD no. 1 petitioner shall not interfere in the exclusive possession of the decree holders over disputed land of rectangle no. 60 except by partition and shall not forcibly demand any crop share from the said land except through court. In view thereof, counsel for decree holders states that the execution petition may be disposed of accordingly with liberty to decree holders to file fresh execution petition if in future the decree is violated. It is ordered accordingly. Consequently, the execution petition as well as instant revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.;