IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2696 of 2010 Decided on : 30.06.2010 Bhag Singh Dhanjal ... Petitioner versus Lala Ram Saran Dass Dharamarth Trust & ors. ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present : Mr. Rajeshwar Singh Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. Civil suit for possession of suit land was decreed in favour of respondent No.1. In the execution, petitioner who is a stranger to the decree filed objections raising the plea that the site plan relied upon by the Court was not a part of the court file and therefore, the decree cannot be executed in the absence of identification of the property in dispute. The aforesaid objections were dismissed by the Executing Court vide impugned order dated 20.02.2010 observing as under: “The next objection raised by the objections pertains to the identification/specification of the suit property/disputed area. This plea can safely be taken care of by observing that the present decree pertains to possession of 2 kanals 6 marlas 8 Sarsais area as duly described and detailed in the head note of the plaint, comprised in Killa No.19 measuring 9 kanals 7 marlas. No objection qua the identity or specification of the property was raised by the JDs before the trial court. Rather, the JDs have put forth the plea of adverse possession admitting the identity and specification of the property in question. The objections put forth by the JDs therefore are CR No.2696 of 2010 -2- frivolous, aimed at delaying the proceedings and stalling the execution of decree of the court. Absolutely no reason for framing of issues in the said objections is made out as the objections on the very face of it do not raise any question relating to right, title or interest of a stranger to the suit property nor a question which calls for leading of evidence by either of the parties. Both the applications filed by JDs are therefore dismissed. Let warrants of possession be issued on filing of PF, for 27.03.2010.” The impugned order has been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the same ground that there is no site plan before the courts below and therefore, the property in dispute cannot be identified in execution of the decree. As observed above, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is frivolous as at no point of time, the identity of property was ever disputed by the petitioner in his pleadings in the suit. Dismissed. June 30, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) sonia JUDGE