CR-2734-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 124 Harnek Singh Malkeet Singh and CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. 1. plaintiff/decree holder setting aside the order dated Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phul 11.03.2025 (AnnexureP Handwriting Expert filed by Judgment herein, has been allowed. 2. persons/respondents No. 6 to 7D herein dated 13.02.2015 measuring 1 Kanal 13 marlas as per Jamabandi 2010 was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.02.2016 (Annexure P respondents 16.02.2016 dated 01.02.2018 (Annexure P 2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Harnek Singh Versus Malkeet Singh and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. JK Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. NIDHI GUPTA, J. The present Civil Revision Petition has been plaintiff/decree holder under Article 227 of the setting aside the order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phul, whereby 11.03.2025 (AnnexureP-7) for examination of Fingerprint and Handwriting Expert filed by Judgment-Debtors/respondents No. 1 to 5 has been allowed. Brief facts of the case are that the persons/respondents No. 6 to 7D herein, 13.02.2015 for possession by way of partition of measuring 1 Kanal 13 marlas as per Jamabandi 2010 was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.02.2016 (Annexure P-1) and preliminary decree was passed. respondents filed appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 16.02.2016. However, the said appeal was withdrawn by the dated 01.02.2018 (Annexure P-2), on the statement made by IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2734-2025 Date of Decision: 06.05.2025 .…Petitioner ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. JK Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for passed by the learned Additional , whereby the application dated for examination of Fingerprint and Debtors/respondents No. 1 to 5F that the petitioner along with other had filed a Civil Suit No. 225 for possession by way of partition of Gair Mumkin land measuring 1 Kanal 13 marlas as per Jamabandi 2010-11. The said suit was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 1) and preliminary decree was passed. The filed appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated peal was withdrawn by them vide order 2), on the statement made by their counsel by the passed by the learned Additional the application dated for examination of Fingerprint and petitioner along with other l Suit No. 225 land . The said suit was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated The filed appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated vide order counsel RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.09 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-2734-2025 that a compromise ha did not wish to pursue the appeal 3. application dated 13.02.2019 (Annexure P terms of judgment and decree dated 16.02.2016 (Annexure P application dated Debtors by the application for passing final decree was not maintainable as filed on the basis of incorrect facts. It was alleged that the have no concern or between the parties whereby the favour of the agricultural land. (Annexure P respondent framed by the learned Executing Court, vide order dated (Annexure P 4. filed by the petitioner for passing of final decree, that the Judgment Debtors/respondents No. 1 to 5F herein, have filed the present applicat dated 11.03.2025 (Annexure P 2025 -2- a compromise had been affected between the parties and, therefore he did not wish to pursue the appeal. Accordingly, the plaintiffs/Decree application dated 13.02.2019 (Annexure P- terms of judgment and decree dated 16.02.2016 (Annexure P application dated 13.02.2019 was resisted by the responden ebtors by filing reply dated 20.08.2019, the application for passing final decree was not maintainable as filed on the basis of incorrect facts. It was alleged that the no concern or share in the suit land, in view of compromise effected between the parties whereby the Decree-H favour of the respondent/Judgment-Debtors after receiving their icultural land. The Decree-Holders filed rejoinder dated (Annexure P-5) to the aforesaid reply denying the averments of the respondent. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Executing Court, vide order dated (Annexure P-6):- 1. Whether compromise dated between both the parties in respect of property in dispute? OPR 2. If so, whether vice that compromise, parties have already got separated possession by way of partition of suit property? OPR 3. Whether the present application is not maintainable? OPR 4. Relief.” It is in these proceedings i.e. Application filed by the petitioner for passing of final decree, that the Judgment Debtors/respondents No. 1 to 5F herein, have filed the present applicat dated 11.03.2025 (Annexure P-7) for examination of Fingerprint and between the parties and, therefore he Accordingly, the plaintiffs/Decree-Holders filed an -3) for passing of final decree in terms of judgment and decree dated 16.02.2016 (Annexure P-1). The said 13.02.2019 was resisted by the respondent/Judgment- filing reply dated 20.08.2019, inter alia, stating therein that the application for passing final decree was not maintainable as, it was filed on the basis of incorrect facts. It was alleged that the Decree-Holders share in the suit land, in view of compromise effected Holders have left their land in ebtors after receiving their filed rejoinder dated 21.03.2022 to the aforesaid reply denying the averments of the On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Executing Court, vide order dated 07.12.2024 dated 11.08.2016 was effected between both the parties in respect of property in If so, whether vice that compromise, parties have already got separated possession by way of partition of application is not maintainable? It is in these proceedings i.e. Application (Annexure P-3), filed by the petitioner for passing of final decree, that the Judgment- Debtors/respondents No. 1 to 5F herein, have filed the present application 7) for examination of Fingerprint and between the parties and, therefore he Holders filed an 3) for passing of final decree in said stating therein that it was share in the suit land, in view of compromise effected olders have left their land in ebtors after receiving their to the aforesaid reply denying the averments of the On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were 07.12.2024 11.08.2016 was effected between both the parties in respect of property in If so, whether vice that compromise, parties have already got separated possession by way of partition of application is not maintainable? 3), ion 7) for examination of Fingerprint and RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.09 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-2734-2025 Handwriting Expert for the purpose of comparison of signatures and thumb impressions of the Decree the compromise been allowed vide the impugned order 5. to interfere in the matter submits that he does not want to submits that of final decree adjudication before the 13.2.2019. It satisfied if aforesaid application manner. 6. 7. merits of the pressed, with a direction to application dated within a period 08 8. 06.05.2025 rishu 2025 -3- Handwriting Expert for the purpose of comparison of signatures and thumb impressions of the Decree-Holders as the respondents are disputing the compromise. The petitioner is aggrieved a been allowed vide the impugned order dated 22.4.2025 After arguing for some time, when this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter on merits, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to press th that application(Annexure P-3)filed by the petitioner of final decree in terms of judgment dated 16.2.2016, adjudication before the ld. Executing Court for the last 06 years . It is accordingly prayed that at this stage, satisfied if a direction is issued to the ld. application dated 13.2.2019 (Annexure P Heard. Keeping in view the above facts, and merits of the matter, the present revision petition is with a direction to the learned Executing Court application dated 13.02.2019 (Annexure P- period 08 months from today, in accordance with law. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 06.05.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Handwriting Expert for the purpose of comparison of signatures and as the respondents are disputing grieved as the said application has dated 22.4.2025. fter arguing for some time, when this Court is not inclined , learned counsel for the petitioner press the present petition. However, 3)filed by the petitioner for passing in terms of judgment dated 16.2.2016, is pending Executing Court for the last 06 years since at this stage, petitioner would be ld. Executing Court to decide the (Annexure P-3) in a time bound Keeping in view the above facts, and without going into the the present revision petition is dismissed as not the learned Executing Court to decide the -3) expeditiously and preferably months from today, in accordance with law. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Handwriting Expert for the purpose of comparison of signatures and as the respondents are disputing s the said application has fter arguing for some time, when this Court is not inclined , learned counsel for the petitioner owever, for passing is pending since would be Executing Court to decide the in a time bound without going into the dismissed as not the usly and preferably RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.09 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.