Iqbal Singh vs Jagdish Singh and ors.

S.S. Sodhi, J.

No exception can indeed be taken to the impugned order of the execution Court entertaining a second application for execution to enable the decree holder to follow up delivery of symbolic possession of the land in suit by actual possession thereof.

On October 5, 1982, a decree for possession of land was passed in favour of the decreeholder which was later upheld and affirmed by this Court on November 20, 1984. The decree holder, therafter filed an application for execution of this decree and on May 31, 1986, a warrant of possession was issued directing actual physical possession of the land in suit be given to the decreeholder with police help. The land in suit being 141 kanals and 5 marlas. Actual possession could be given of only 8 kanals and 11 marlas of land as the remaining land was under crops. The execution application was thereafter disposed of by the executing Court with the order, " counsel for the decreeholder present Report received. Possession has been delivered to the decreeholder. File be consigned as fully satisfied."

Later, on November 22, 1986, the decreeholder moved a second application for execution to obtain actual possession of the remaining land in suit. An objection was raised by the judgmentdebtor that this application did not lie as the previous execution application has been consigned to the record room as fully satisfied. This objection was, however, negatived by the Court and this is what is now sought to be challenged in revision.

Mr. H.L. Sarin, appearing for the judgmentdebtor relying upon Niranjan Singh v. Rameshwar Singh and another, 1977 PLJ 267; Jaimal Singh Dasaundha Singh v. Rakha Singh and another, AIR 1957 Punjab 17; Mst. Mewa and others v. Amar Singh and others, 1958 PLR 249 and Bishan Singh v. Hukan Chand and others, 1989(2) RRR 187 (P&H) : 1989(1) RRR 597 (P&H) : 1989 PLJ 380, sought to contend that once symbolic possession of the land had been granted and the application is consigned as fully satisfied, no subsequent application for actual physical possession at the instance of the decreeholder is maintainable. The answer to this is, however, provided by the recent judgment of this Court in Ajit Kaur v. Mandir Jhoke Hari Har and others, 1989(1) Current Law Journal 65, where a similar point had been canvassed. There too, in execution of a decree for possession of land only symbolic possession was given to the decreeholder as the land was under crops and was gair mumkin. The execution application was thereafter dismissed in default. The dismissal of the application in default was sought to be construed as satisfaction of the decree holder with merely symbolic possession of the land. It was held that even if symbolic possession had been given with the consent of the decreeholder, it would not amount to satisfaction of the decree and consequently a second execution application for obtaining actual possession was thus not barred. All the authorities cited by the counsel for the petitioner here were noticed and distinguished.

Respectfully agreeing with the view expressed in Ajit Kaur''s case (supra), there can be no escape from the conclusion that the executing Court rightly held that the application of the decreeholder for actual possession was maintainable.

This revision petition is consequently hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500/.