HEMANT GUPTA,J - (1.) THE challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned Executing Court on 29.9.2001 whereby the objections filed by the petitioner were dismissed and the order dated 8.9.2004 whereby the order of the learned Executing Court was maintained in appeal.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1-decree holder filed a suit for permanent injunction on 3.1.1983 claiming that she is in peaceful possession of the land measuring 808 square yards and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants for demolishing and removing the wall described as AB built by the defendants in front of the said plot. It is alleged that the plaintiff had purchased the said land from one Mohan Singh vide registered sale deed dated 24.4.1974. On behalf of the defendants, a joint written statement was filed denying the ownership and possession of the plaintiff. It was alleged that Khasra No. 537 is measuring 4 kanals 6 marlas and that even if any sale is proved to be executed in favour of the plaintiff, the said sale does not effect the nature of the property of Gurdwara Shaheed Baba Sangat Singh Maqbulpura, Amritsar as the land under Khasra No. 537 is in actual possession of Gurdwara Shaheed Baba Sangat Singh and that said Gurdwara has been built up for the last more than 20 years.
(3.) THE learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 13.5.1988. The plaintiff has amended the appeal so as to claim a decree for mandatory injunction for directing the removal of the wall/Thara constructed on the property in dispute. The learned First Appellate Court on the basis of the report of the Local Commissioner, Exhibit P-2 and site plan Exhibit P-3, returned a finding that the only wall was constructed by the defendants after filing of the suit. The plea of the defendants that they have constructed a Gurdwara was found to be false. The appeal was, thus, allowed by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 27.7.1993. Para No. 7 of the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court reads as under:- "7. In this case, Mr. Subodh Kumar, Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner who prepared his report Ex.P.2 and site plan Ex.P.3 and attendance report Ex.P-4. He has reported that on the right side of the demised plot, there is a cycle shop and on the left side there is a shamlat land. Regarding the spot, it is said that a wall upto the height of 2 ft. has been constructed and that the construction was going on at the time of his visit. Bricks etc. were also lying at the spot. There was an open space on one side of the wall. The expert has shown the construction of a wall and a Tharra over the property in dispute. It is not disputed that the property in dispute, as shown in the site plan Ex.P-3, is comprised of khasra No. 537 min. From the report of the local commissioner, it stands proved that only wall was constructed by the defendants after the filing of the suit. The defendants have taken the plea that they had constructed a Gurdwara but this fact has been found to be false." ;