IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7117 of 2010 Date of Decision: October 29, 2010 Smt. Kamlesh. …Petitioner Versus Naresh and another. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 13.05.2009 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Safidon, whereby the objection raised by the petitioner/judgment debtor was rejected. The brief facts of the present case are that respondent filed suit under Section 7 read with Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act in the Court of Additional Civil C.R. No. 7117 of 2010 Judge (Senior Division) Safidon (Jind). The petitioner – judgment debtor – defendant has appeared before the Trial Court and has raised objection about the territorial jurisdiction of Safidon (Jind) Court on the ground minor is residing at Village Bahu Jamalpur, District Rohtak, hence, Court at Safidon, District Jind has absolutely no territorial jurisdiction. However, overruling the objection on territorial jurisdiction, suit was ultimately decreed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent herein. Thereafter, respondent – decree holder moved execution which was registered at Execution No. 24 of 2006. In the execution, once again defendant – judgment debtor – petitioner herein raised similar objection about the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Safidon, District Jind. Learned Executing Court has rejected the objection raised by the judgment debtor – petitioner herein vide impugned order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In the opinion of this Court, once during the pendency of the suit, territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court was challenged and was over-ruled by the Trial Court and suit was decreed, then, it is not open to the defendant to raise the same before the Executing Court. Petition is devoid of merit and seems to be abuse of process of law. 2 C.R. No. 7117 of 2010 Not only this, impugned order was passed way back on 13.05.2009, no laches have been explained in the present petition, which is being filed after more than 1-1/2 years. This Court cannot shut its eyes towards the abuse of the process of law, that too with the object to cause unnecessary delay in the execution of the decree. Present petition is dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.5,000/- which is to be paid within 10 days from today to the Punjab and Haryana Bar Association Advocates’ Welfare fund. October 29, 2010 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3