Civil Revision No.168 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.168 of 2009 Date of Decision:14.01.2009 Tarsem ....petitioner Versus Gurdial Singh & anr. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.J.S.Cooner,Advocate for the petitioner **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. A decree was passed against Jit Ram, father of the petitioner in a civil suit filed by respondent-Gurdial Singh for possession of the suit property. The aforesaid Gurdial Singh filed execution of the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 04.06.1998. In the execution petition, warrant of possession was issued against the suit property. The petitioner filed objections against the issuance of warrant of possession of the property pleading that the property in dispute fell to his share in a family partition that took place about 16 years back and the judgment debtor Jit Ram was left with no right, title or interest of the house in question. The petitioner was neither a party to the decree nor received any summons from the Court and the decree was obtained by the decree holder by concealing true facts from the Court. Thus the decree holder had no right to take its possession from him. Decree holder/respondent No.1 filed reply to the objection petition stating therein that objector/petitioner was the son of Civil Revision No.168 of 2009 2 judgment debtor Jit Ram-respondent No.2. Jit Ram has nowhere pleaded that property in question was owned by his son Tarsem/petitioner, rather Jit Ram had claimed himself to be owner in possession of the property in question. The objector/petitioner and JD are member of a joint family and have been living together and the objections were filed just to delay the execution of the decree passed in his favour. Thus, it was prayed that objections be dismissed. The Executing Court vide impugned order dated 06.10.2008 found the objections without any merit and dismissed the same. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 06.10.2008, whereby objections filed by him were dismissed by the Executing Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that vide impugned order objection petition has been dismissed illegally and without considering the fact that petitioner is residing in the house in question since 1985 and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to produce evidence in support of his objection petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The suit was decreed in favour of the decree holder vide judgment and decree dated 04.06.1998. The judgment debtor preferred civil appeal against the aforesaid decree which was dismissed by District Judge, Ambala, vide judgment and decree dated 28.08.2000. No objection was taken by the judgment debtor Jit Ram to the effect that property in question belonged to his son Tarsem i.e.petitioner rather he claimed himself to be owner in possession of the suit property. There is nothing on record which prima facie shows that the objector Tarsem had been residing separately from his father or he is the owner in possession of the property in dispute in his own right. Neither there is any evidence to support his plea that property in dispute was given to him in a family settlement as claimed by him. Thus, Civil Revision No.168 of 2009 3 the Executing Court was right in law while holding that the present objection petition seems to have been filed by the objector just to delay the execution of the decree passed in favour of the decree holder by a court of competent jurisdiction. The decree which is being executed has been passed by the court of competent jurisdiction within the ambit of the powers vested in it. Thus, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 14.01.2009 neenu