Judgment Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, J. :-This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of theConstitution of India praying for setting aside the order dated 18.11.2019and 29.11.2019 (Annexures P-1 and P-2) passed by the Executing Court,Jalandhar. 2.The facts of the case, as has come up during the argumentsof the case, are that a property was left by the mother of the petitioner,Smt. Kamal Sondhi, who died on 24.05.1990 in-testate. There were foursuccessors, who were entitled to inherit the same in equal shares. Thepetitioner happens to be one of them, who is the son of Smt. KamalSondhi. The other two sons are respondent Nos.2 and 3; and the fourthclaimant was respondent No.1, Ram Parkash Sondhi, the husband of thedeceased Smt. Kamal Sondhi. After the death of Kamal Sondhi,respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a suit for possession by way of partition ofthe said property. The suit was decreed, vide judgment and decree dated08.02.2011. However, the peculiar feature of this case is that the trialCourt had not prepared any preliminary decree to determine the shares.Instead, before the preliminary decree could be passed, the partiesentered into an agreement dated 11.06.2001 and placed the same onrecord before the trial Court as Ex.P-3. That compromise mentionedspecified shares and also the specific portions, which were to be given tothe respective parties. The map showing the specific portions of therespective parties was also placed on record before the trial Court asEx.P-4. Not only the parties had entered into compromise, the parties hadeven appeared before the trial Court and had made their respectivestatements before the trial Court on 30.06.2001; accepting and ratifyingthe compromise placed on record before the trial Court. Accordingly, thetrial Court passed the final decree itself; by partitioning the property bymeats and bounds; and ordering giving possession of the specific portionsto the parties, as was mentioned in the compromise and as was depictedin the site plan attached to the said compromise. 3.Feeling not satisfied with the decree passed by the trialCourt, the petitioner herein had preferred an appeal against the samebefore the Appellate Court. However, that appeal was also dismissed,vide judgment and decree dated 17.02.2012. Aggrieved against the saidjudgment and decree, the present petitioner had also preferred RegularSecond Appeal No.5163 of 2014 before this Court. However, that RSAwas also dismissed by this Court, vide judgment dated 13.10.2015. Nofurther appeal was filed by either of the parties against the judgmentpassed by this Court. However, that appeal was also dismissed,vide judgment and decree dated 17.02.2012. Aggrieved against the saidjudgment and decree, the present petitioner had also preferred RegularSecond Appeal No.5163 of 2014 before this Court. However, that RSAwas also dismissed by this Court, vide judgment dated 13.10.2015. Nofurther appeal was filed by either of the parties against the judgmentpassed by this Court. Hence, the decree passed by the trial Court hadattained finality. 4.Since, as per the judgment and decree passed by the trialCourt, the parties were entitled to specific shares and portions, whichwere demarcated in the site plan attached with the judgment and decree;as A, B, C and D for respective parties, therefore, respondent No.2 filedan execution petition on 12.05.2012 before the Executing Court forseeking possession of his share only, which was specified to be ‘D’ in thesite plan. It is that execution petition which is still pending; and fromwhich the present revision petition has arisen. 5.Another fact which deserves to be noticed is that respondentNo.1, who is the father of the petitioner and the remaining respondentshad expired on 24.08.2001 before the final decree was passed by the trialCourt. Hence, during the execution proceedings, the present petitionerfiled objections under Section 47 of CPC claiming that since the father ofthe petitioner had left a Will and had also executed a sale deed in hisfavour, therefore, the partition could not have been finalized; except bydealing with the share of his father, which was to devolve upon thepetitioner. The said objections were dismissed by the Executing Courtholding that under the final decree, the father of the parties was entitledto portion ‘A’ marked in the site plan. Therefore, the fresh dispute, if anyrelated to only portion ‘A’ and has nothing to do with portion ‘D’; quawhich the execution petition was filed. Challenging that order passed bythe Executing Court, the present petitioner filed an appeal No.205 of2017 before the Appellate Court. That appeal was dismissed by theAppellate Court vide judgment and order dated 01.12.2017 as non-maintainable;because no such appeal is permissible under the provisionsof the CPC. 6.In view of the orders passed by the various Courts till thatstage, the Executing Court had issued warrants of possession in favour ofrespondent No. 2 qua the property mentioned as portion ‘D’ in the siteplan only. 6.In view of the orders passed by the various Courts till thatstage, the Executing Court had issued warrants of possession in favour ofrespondent No. 2 qua the property mentioned as portion ‘D’ in the siteplan only. Another aspect which has come up is that during the pendencyof the execution petition, earlier, the petitioner had also filed anapplication for appointment of a Building Expert for taking safetymeasures, in case the house which is spread over all the portions ‘A’, ‘B’,‘C’ and ‘D’, was to be demolished. Upon that application filed by thepetitioner, the Court had deputed a Building Expert, who had submittedhis report that the property between the parties could be easily dividedwithout any demolition; but by adopting the appropriate safety measures;at the time of actual partition. Against the said report also, the petitionerpreferred objections alleging that the Building Expert had not done hisjob properly, therefore, report of the Building Expert deserved to bediscarded. However, the Executing Court had rejected that objections;filed by the petitioner; as well. The petitioner preferred reviewapplication against that order passed by the Executing Court. But thatreview application was also dismissed by the Executing Court vide orderdated 18.01.2019 and the warrants of possession qua portion ‘D’ infavour of respondent No.2 were issued. Thereafter, the petitioner filedCivil Revision No.790 of 2018 before this Court challenging the abovesaid order passed by Executing Court. That Civil Revision was disposedof by this Court, vide judgment dated 19.10.2019, again on the basis ofan agreed proposition between the parties. In that order, this Court hadobserved that the portions marked as ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ were not evenunder dispute by either of the parties as their respective allotments oftheir shares. It was further directed by this Court that the Executing Courtshall take steps qua the execution and handing over the possession ofportion ‘D’ to respondent No.2 herein, in accordance with law. Whiledisposing of that revision petition, this Court had also observed that quathe share of the father of the parties, the application, if any filed by thepetitioner would be decided by the Executing Court; within six months. 7.On the basis of the orders passed by various Courts upto thatdate, the Executing Court had again issued warrants of possession onlyqua portion ‘D’ in favour of respondent No.2, who was allotted thisportion; as per the final decree passed by the trial Court dated08.02.2011. 7.On the basis of the orders passed by various Courts upto thatdate, the Executing Court had again issued warrants of possession onlyqua portion ‘D’ in favour of respondent No.2, who was allotted thisportion; as per the final decree passed by the trial Court dated08.02.2011. Vide order dated 18.11.2019, the Executing Court had issuedwarrants of possession along with necessary police help; for 29.11.2019;and the application filed by the petitioner qua his share and qua the shareof his father on the basis of a Will and the sale deed, was adjourned toawait the reply on behalf of the respondents. One of the orderschallenged in the present petition is this order dated 18.11.2019. On29.11.2019 the report came that warrants could not be executed due tonon-availability of police force and, therefore, it was ordered thatwarrants of possession be issued again. In this order, it was also said thatthe petitioner had filed an application for deciding the legal issuesinvolved in the execution before proceeding with warrants of possession,and accordingly, reply to that application was also sought. Both theseorders dated 18.11.2019 and 29.11.2019 are under challenge in thepresent petition. However, before filing the present petition, the petitionerhad again filed an appeal before the Appellate Court against order dated29.11.2019 but the same was dismissed by the Appellate Court holdingthat no such appeal was maintainable under the provisions of CPC.However, even in that non-maintainable appeal, at initial stage someinterim order was passed by the Appellate Court and process ofExecuting Court was stalled for about two months on that account.Thereafter, the present petition has been preferred. 8.Arguing the case on behalf of the petitioner, the counsel forthe petitioner has submitted that he has no dispute qua the possession ofportion ‘D’, as mentioned in the final decree, being given to respondentNo.2. However, since there is a house spread over all the portions ‘A’,‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’, therefore, the possession be ordered to be handed overin the presence of a Building Expert; so that no damage is caused to thestructure of the house in the remaining portions. No other argument onany legal or factual aspect has been raised by the counsel for thepetitioner. 9.On the other hand, the counsel for respondent No.2 hassubmitted that the petitioner has been waiting for getting possession ofhis allotted share for the past more than ten years. No other argument onany legal or factual aspect has been raised by the counsel for thepetitioner. 9.On the other hand, the counsel for respondent No.2 hassubmitted that the petitioner has been waiting for getting possession ofhis allotted share for the past more than ten years. The petitioner has beenfrustrating the effort of respondent No.2 by filing all kind of objections,pleadings and the appeals, which were not even maintainable to his ownknowledge. As a result, respondent No.2 has been deprived of his rightfuldue. However, respondent No.2 does not even have any objection, if aqualified Building Expert/Structural Engineer is ordered to be present atthe time of handing over the possession of his share as portion ‘D’ tohim; to ensure that no damage is caused to the remaining portions of thehouse. The counsel has further submitted that at present the respondentNo.2 does not even intend to demolish any portion of the house whichcomes to his portion of the property. He would only erect a separationwall separating his share from the share of the adjoining co-sharer,without causing any unnecessary damage and unnecessary demolition inthe house. At present the respondent No.2 would not demolish anyportion of the house except that item which comes in between when thewall is to be erected and which is necessary for making a way forentering the house from his own portion. 10.Having considered the argument of the counsel for theparties and having perused the case file, this Court does not find anysubstance in the argument of the counsel for the petitioner. On thecontrary, this Court finds repeated mischievous attempts by the petitionerby making frivolous applications and by filing non-maintainable appealsand petitions; just to thwart delivery of possession to respondent No.2 ofthe share and portion, which was allotted to him; only as per theagreement entered into between the parties which formed part of thedecree; as such. So far as the claim of the petitioner is concerned, thatalready stands finalized upto the Regular Second Appeal, which wasdecided by this Court, and thereafter, finally, in the revision petitionbearing CR No.790 of 2018, which was again disposed of by this Courton the basis of agreement between the parties, under which the matter ofdelivery of possession to respondent No.2 qua the portion ‘D’ was dealtwith separately and the issue of claim of the present petitioner quaportion ‘A’, which comes from the father of the parties, was dealt withseparately. After the said revision petition having been finally dismissedby this Court qua portion ‘D’ there was no legal basis, reason or occasionfor the petitioner to obstruct the delivery of possession of the allottedshare to respondent No.2. However again, he has filed the presentpetition. A perusal of the orders, against which the present petition hasbeen filed, does not even show any actionable claim on the part of thepresent petitioner. The warrants of possession in favour of respondentNo.2 have been issued vide the impugned order only qua portion ‘D’,which already stood upheld even by this Court in Regular Second Appealand the Civil Revision mentioned above. In the present petition, thepetitioner is only trying to take undue advantage of the observationsmade by earlier revisional Court while disposing of the revision petition,by way of abundant caution, that the possession be divided ‘inaccordance with law’. Order issuing warrants of possession is only a stepto hand over the possession in accordance with law. Therefore, any plearaised by the present petitioner against delivery of possession of portion‘D’ as the share of respondent No.2 is totally unsustainable on all counts.Hence, all his objections qua delivery of possession of portion ‘D’ torespondent No.2 are hereby rejected. Respondent No.2 is held entitled toabsolute right to get the possession of the portion ‘D’, by all legal means,and by utilizing all processes of law, including the immediate police help. 11.However, at this stage, even the petitioner seems to havereconciled that all his tricks to be played upon any process of the Courtstand exhausted, therefore, he has also not raised any objection; quadelivery of possession of portion ‘D’ to respondent No.2; as such. Hisonly prayer now is that the safety of the structure of the house be ensuredat the time of taking of possession of portion ‘D’ by the respondent No.2.Therefore, a Structural Engineer be made to be present at the time ofdelivery of possession of portion ‘D’. However, even this prayer isfrivolous. The portions allotted to the petitioner and to the respondentNo.2 are not even abutting to each other. Share of the petitioner is portion‘B’ whereas the share of the respondent No.2 is portion ‘D’. In betweenthese, there is portion ‘C’. However, even this prayer isfrivolous. The portions allotted to the petitioner and to the respondentNo.2 are not even abutting to each other. Share of the petitioner is portion‘B’ whereas the share of the respondent No.2 is portion ‘D’. In betweenthese, there is portion ‘C’. Therefore, although the petitioner does nothave any right to insist upon that also, however, as the matter ofprecaution, it would be appropriate, if respondent No.2 attempts to ensurethe safety of the structure of the house; at the time of taking of thepossession. Since, respondent No.2 is not a qualified Structural Engineer,therefore, it would be appropriate, if a Structural Engineer remainspresent at the time; when respondent No.2 takes possession of theproperty and erects his partition wall to ensure separation of his sharefrom the share of the other co-sharers. 12.Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. 13.However, as a precautionary measure, it is ordered thatwhile taking possession of the portion ‘D’, respondent No.2 shall ensurethe presence of a qualified Structural Engineer and shall create theentrance point to the structure of the house from his portion and raise thepartition wall in accordance with the advice of the Structural Engineer.However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to raise any objection; quathis process before any Court or Authority. Since, the matter has beenpending since long, therefore, it is also ordered that respondent No.2 shallbe entitled to police help at the time of taking of the possession and/or atthe time of raising of partition wall, so as to avoid any unnecessary andundesirable situation to happen. The Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar,if approached, shall ensure the presence of the police help at the time oftaking of the possession and/or at the time of raising of the partition wall. 14.Let the needful be done within a period of twenty days fromthe date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 15.The case be put up before the Bench on 11.01.2022 forsubmission of compliance report, by the respondent No.2.