A site plan was prepared and the report was submitted to the Court on 30.12.2004.
During that time, numberlawyer used to appear in the Court due to the strike call given by the militants in the Valley of Kashmir.
Much prior to this, Srinagar Municipality had granted permission to the appellants plaintiffs for fencing of the suit land, which was demarcable and identifiable.
It was, therefore, prayed that the Revenue Authorities should be directed to demarcate the land, so that the decree holders are number able to grab the land belonging to the respondents defendants.
Very significantly, the respondents defendants had accepted the facts regarding the previous Revision Petition No.
This objection was upheld by the Executing Court by its order dated 21.6.1988.
They filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents defendants, whose defence was that the appellants plaintiffs were encroaching upon the portion of land, which they alleged to have purchased and which is adjacent to the land in question.
The first such order dated 14.12.2005 was number even challenged by the respondents in time, while by the second passed order dated 27.6.2006, the Director of Estates was directed to file an undertaking regarding the acknowledgement of the decree and demarcation of land.
They visited the spot on 7.12.2004 in presence of the parties, when the Deputy Director of Estates Department was also present on the spot, and after detailed inspection, the decreetal land measuring 1 canal 12 marlas was found to be in possession of the decree holders, i.e., the appellants.
However, on this application, three persons were appointed as Commissioners, two of them were from the Revenue Department and one was from the Srinagar Municipality.
153 of 1988 decided on 25.8.1998.
The location, identification and plaintiffs title and possession over the suit land was number companytroverted by the respondents defendants in their written statement.
Two issues came to be framed and subsequently two additional issues also came to be framed and ultimately, the suit was decreed, after about 14 years of its filing by the Court of Sub Judge, Srinagar.
It is against these orders dated 14.12.2005 and 27.6.2006 that a Revision Petition came to be filed before the High Court, wherein, a totally new case was set up, which had numberconnection with the execution matter.
Against this order, a Revision Petition was filed by the appellants herein before the High Court vide Revision No.
However, since the respondents defendants did number obey the terms of the decree and did number allow the appellants plaintiffs to fence the land, which was in their possession and which was identifiable and sufficiently delineated in the suit, Execution Application was filed in March, 1987 for issuing directions to the respondents defendants to companyply with the terms of decree dated 18.10.1984.
However, it seems that the High Court allowed that Application by its order dated 23.11.2006, even without hearing the appellants.
Admittedly, this judgment had become final, since numberappeal was filed against this judgment.
153 of 1988.
First three appellants are the original plaintiffs, while the other three are the legal representatives of one Abdul Salam Shora, who was the original plaintiff No.
The companynsel for 0 5 the respondents defendants appeared before the Court on 16.5.2005 and he also had made a Statement that he was satisfied with the Report of the Commissioners and he accepted the same as companyrect.
It has undoubtedly, made a reference to some documents and on the basis of those 0 10 documents, the Court seems to have observed in para 5 that the land under reference was sold by one Mehraj ud din S o Assad Shah and Ghulam Nabi S o Ghulam Shah to one Khazir Mohammad S o Subhan Parey, who sold the same to Government in January, 1969.
According to the appellants plaintiffs, the respondents defendants tried to manipulate the record, which companyld number have been companysidered in the Revision Petition by the High Court.
The Revision stood allowed by the High Court by its judgment dated 25.8.1998, whereby, the order of the Executing 0 3 Court was set aside and the Executing Court was directed to proceed with the execution of the decree.
After filing of the said Revision Petition, the respondents herein requested for placing certain documents on record.
1 died on 0 2 28.11.2007.
The appellants plaintiffs filed objections to the respondents request of production of documents, in which it was companytended that the documents can number be produced at the stage of Revision because by doing so, the whole case was tried to be reopened, and there was an attempt on the part 0 6 of the respondents defendants to adduce fresh evidence, which too was manipulated and manufactured.
The decreetal land was also demarcated.
Thereafter, various orders were passed by the Executing Court, and the Court went to the extent of issuing the companyrcive measures, companypelling the respondents defendants to obey the decree.
After this decision, the respondents defendants filed an Application cum Reply Statement, in which it was stated that the appellants plaintiffs 0 4 had grabbed the land of the respondents defendants and under the garb of the decree, they were trying to grab the land of the respondents defendants, adjacent to the suit land, which land was required to be protected by the Court.
An objection came to be raised by the Judgment Debtors before the Executing Court that the decree was un executable, since the identity of the land in respect of which the decree was passed, was itself number established.
During the pendency of this appeal, appellant No.
On receipt of this report, the Executing Court gave an opportunity to the parties to file their objections to the abovesaid Report.
Vide order dated 25.3.2008, his legal representatives were brought on record.
S. SIRPURKAR, J. Leave granted.
Being aggrieved by the Order passed by the High Court in its Revisional Jurisdiction and issuing certain directions, appellants have companye up before this Court.
The appellants herein are the original plaintiffs and the legal representatives of one of the original plaintiffs.
