CR-2134-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 106 CR-2134-2025 Date of Decision: 05.04.2025 PUSHKAR RAJ GUPTA …..Pe**oner Vs JITENDER KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Peoner-Pushkar Raj Gupta (Advocate) in person. ****** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. By way of this peon filed under Arcle 227 of the Constuon of India read with Secon 151 CPC, peoner, who is one of respondents before the trial Court, has prayed for staying the proceeding for passing of the final decree (wrongly menoned as staying the execuon proceedings) as pending before the trial Court. 2. A perusal of the paper book would reveal that Arjun Singh Aggarwal was owner of property in dispute bearing municipal No.B-III-128, Ward No.4, Masani Road, Mohindergarh. He died in the year 1995. His wife had later on expired. He le6 behind 04 sons and 02 daughters. Peoner herein i.e. Pushkar Raj Gupta is one of the sons. Jitender Kumar Gupta, one of the sons of late Arjun Singh Aggarwal brought the suit before learned Civil Judge Mohindergarh seeking paron of the suit property against his 05 siblings including present peoner. The trial Court vide judgment dated 20.01.2016 dismissed the suit by observing that plainff had failed to show that suit property was the only property owned by Arjun Singh Aggarwal and that though the plainff had claimed the measurement of the suit property to be 939 square yards but as per the statement of building expert produced during evidence, the area of the suit property was 822 square yards. It was also noced that sale cerficate Ex.PW-1/B in favour of Arjun Singh Aggarwal did not record the measurement of the property. Page 1 of 5 Pages PRIYANKA 2025.04.07 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2134-2025 3. The appeal filed by the plainff against the aforesaid judgment of the trial Court was accepted by the First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 29.08.2018 by observing that simply because measurement of the suit property could not be clearly established, pares could not be le6 in lurch and that measurement can always be determined at the me of final paron by metes and bounds. It was further observed that in paron suit, at the stage of preliminary decree, what is required to be determined is as to whether the plainff had a share in the suit property and in case the answer in the affirmave, then he is entled a division and separate possession. With this reasoning, the suit was decreed. Preliminary decree of paron was passed to the effect that pares i.e. plainff and defendant Nos. 1 to 5 were co-owners in the suit property to the extent that 1/6 share each. Cross-objecons of defendant N: 4 i.e., peoner herein were also dismissed. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment of first appellate court, defendant No.4 Pushkar Raj Gupta (peoner herein) filed RSA Nos.5642 against decretal of the suit; and RSA N: 5698-2018 against dismissal of his counter claim. Both these RSAs were dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.10.2018 by observing as under:- “Much stress has been laid that as there is dispute between the pares with regard to exact measurements of the suit property, the Appellate Court has seriously erred by seEng aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and allowing claim of the respondent- plainff with the observaons that measurement of the property shall be determined at the me of final paron between the pares. No doubt, the Appellate Court could appoint a local commission for taking measurements of the property in order to ascertain its exact area for the purpose of recording a definite finding with regard to total area of the house in queson. Counsel has failed to advance any arguments much less meaningful as to what prejudice has been caused to the appellant if the exact area of the property has been le6 to be determined at the me of final paron by metes and bounds. As neither any prejudice has been caused to the appellant by deciding the respecve shares of the pares in the suit property and leaving the exact measurements to be ascertained at the me of final paron nor any useful purpose would be Page 2 of 5 Pages PRIYANKA 2025.04.07 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2134-2025 served by seEng aside the decree passed by the Appellate court and remiFance of the case for decision of appeal afresh a6er determining exact measurements of the suit property except incurring inconvenience, cost and delay, I do not find any valid and jusfiable reason for intervenon.” 5. A6er the abovesaid decision of this Court, plainff-Jitender Kumar Gupta moved an applicaon bearing CM-10-2022 for passing of the final decree. He also made a prayer to appoint Local Commissioner. 6. As the paper book would reveal that a site plan was produced by plainff-Jitender Kumar Gupta for drawing the final decree of paron by metes and bounds, which was objected to by the present peoner - defendant No.4 on the ground that dimensions menoned therein did not match with the dimensions given in the preliminary decree, inasmuch as preliminary decree was passed regarding 939 square yards, whereas site plan was only with regard to 822 square yards and so, final decree could not be passed. On the other hand, it was submiFed by the applicant-plainff that the site plan depicted actual dimensions of the suit property and stated at bar before the Court that in case, there was any extra land at the spot, it could be given to defendant No.4 i.e. peoner herein. 7. Learned trial Court a6er taking note of the observaons made by this Court in the order dated 15.10.2018 as above, held that it was necessary to appoint a Local Commissioner for measurement of the exact dimensions of the suit property and further to suggest the mode of paron for passing of the final decree. Halqa Girdawar, Tehsil &District Mohindergarh was accordingly appointed as local Commissioner, vide an order dated 06.09.2023. 8. As it is made out from the record the peoner herein again raised objecons by claiming that instead of property No.B III-128, the field Kanungo wanted to measure another property situated in Municipal CommiFee Mohindergarh, which was in the name of objector-peoner. Trial Court observed on the basis of report of local commissioner that the objector- peoner was not permiEng the Local Commissioner to conduct the demarcaon and rather, had started quarrelling with him and that said LC had Page 3 of 5 Pages PRIYANKA 2025.04.07 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2134-2025 prayed for granng Police help. In these circumstances, the trial Court was compelled to pass order dated 21.08.2024, the operave poron of which is as under:- “Further, in view of the report/request made by the Local Commissioner concerned, Tehsildar Mohindergarh is appointed as Duty Magistrate for the purpose of conducng demarcaon and assisng the Local Commissioner concerned in demarcaon as well as for preparing report regarding suitable mode of paron of the property in dispute. Further, SHO concerned is also directed to provide necessary police help including female police officials as and when required by the Local Commissioner pertaining to the preparaon of his report. Copy of this order be sent to the Tehsildar, Mohindergarh as well as SHO concerned for necessary compliance.” 9. Despite the aforesaid order, peoner sll did not allow the Local Commissioner to conduct the demarcaon, inasmuch as he locked the property and despite telephonic calls made to him, did not reach the spot, as noced by the trial Court in its order dated 05.03.2025. The Advocate appearing for the said peoner requested the Court on 5.3.2025 to proceed further in the presence of the present peoner. MaFer was adjourned by the trial Court to 21.04.2025. 10. Peoner-defendant No.4-objector has now approached this Court with the sole submission that the Local Commissioner wants to demarcate some other property; that without confirming the idenficaon of the suit property and its area, the order of appointment of Local Commissioner was wrong. Prayer has been made for staying the proceedings before the trial Court, which have been referred by the peoner as execuon proceedings. 11. Having considered the submissions made by peoner in-person, this Court finds the present peon to be devoid of any merit. As it appears that peoner, who is the Advocate, has le6 no stone unturned to stall the proceedings before the trial Court concerned. Despite the First Appellate Court and then this High Court having made it clear that dimensions of the Page 4 of 5 Pages PRIYANKA 2025.04.07 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2134-2025 suit property could be ascertained by appointment of Local Commissioner and then the property is to be paroned accordingly as per the shares of the pares, the peoner is creang all sorts of hurdles and is not even permiEng the Local Commissioner, as appointed by the Court, to demarcate the property. The Court had made it clear that it is the property menoned in the preliminary decree i.e. B III-128, Masani Road, which is to be demarcated in order to know its exact dimensions and as such, the contenon of the peoner that some other property is being demarcated under the garb of this property, is absolutely without any merit. 12. On account of enre discussion as above, this Court holds this peon to be meritless and as such, the same is hereby dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 05.04.2025 JUDGE Pry Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No Page 5 of 5 Pages PRIYANKA 2025.04.07 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document