C.R. No.2007 of 2006 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.2007 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.08.2009 Sat Pal .....Petitioner Versus Jangir Kaur and others ...Respondents Present: None for the parties. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The judgment debtor's objection for the decree-holder's execution petition for attachment was on the basis that the mandatory provisions of Order 21 Rule 54 CPC had not been complied with and that the process in execution levied by the decree-holder shall be dismissed. The Executing Court found that the decree had been passed on 10.04.2004 and the execution application had been filed nearly a year later on 14.05.2004. The Court found that there was no tenable objection since all the procedures for carrying out attachment had been duly followed and therefore, the objections were wholly without merit and dismissed the petition. 2. When the matter is posted today for disposal in Samadhan 2009, there is no representation for the petitioner as well as respondent. It is stated in the grounds of revision that he had preferred an appeal against a decree obtained by the plaintiff on the C.R. No.2007 of 2006 (O&M) -2- basis of a promissory note which according to a judgment debtor was a forged one and even before any stay order could be obtained in the lower Court, the decree-holder was taking steps for execution. It was his further contention that the shop which was attached, was in busy shopping complex and it ought not to have attached. 3. The grounds of revision are as untenable as the objection that has been taken before the Executing Court. There is absolutely no merit in the civil revision and it is dismissed. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 13, 2009 Pankaj*