- (1.) The petitioners-defendants are aggrieved of the impugned order (Annexure P-8) whereby the objections qua execution application for execution of the sale deed in pursuance of the judgment and decree to the extent of 1/4th share in favour of the plaintiff No.1, 3/4th share in favour of plaintiff No.2 regarding the land in dispute, had been dismissed.
(2.) Mr. S.S. Rangi, learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants submits that the plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 09.06.1993. The aforementioned suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 12.12.2007. The respondentsplaintiffs failed to prove that the possession was handed over at the time of execution, in essence, possession is with the defendants and in the absence of relief of possession, much less, amendment of the plaint in view of the provisions of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, the Executing Court cannot order for possession of the property. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Jeet Singh Vs. Gursewak Singh and others, 2015 2 PunLJ 476 and as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Adcon Electronics Vs. Daulat, 2001 7 SCC 698. He submits that Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act does not envisage any procedure with regard to the delivery of possession in the absence of claim in the plaint. The plaintiff has not sought any amendment of the plaint and therefore, as per the ratio decidendi culled out in the judgment of Jeet Singh's case , the Court could not have issued warrant of possession after execution of the sale deed.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and appraised the paper book. The question raised in the revision petition is whether the judgment rendered by this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court by interpreting provisions of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act would be applicable or not. The aforementioned question came to be debated in this Court in Gurjant Singh Vs. Harbans Kaur and others in C.R. No.5255 of 2014 decided on 07.04.2016 where similar arguments were raised and after discussing the case laws on this point particularly judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babu Lal Vs. M/s Hazari Lal Kishori Lal and others, 1982 AIR(SC) 818 wherein after interpreting provisions of subsection 3 of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that when the statute itself envisages relief of possession, Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act cannot be read in isolation. In my view, in the judgment rendered by this Court in Jeet Singh's case , the Court was not made aware of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babu Lal's case .;