IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7673 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: December 13, 2011 Smt. Savita Kansal and another .. Petitioners Vs. Balbir Singh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. V.B. Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. A.N. Jindal, J In a suit filed by Balbir Singh plaintiff- respondent-decree holder (herein referred as, 'the decree holder') against the objectors as well as Varinder Kumar Kansal and Jagdish Chander Kansal, the trial court passed a decree dated 19.5.2008 for recovery of `40,93,340/- by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 13.6.2000 extended to 31.3.2001 along with interest @ 6% per annum. Though the defendants put in appearance before the civil judge and filed written statement-cum-counter claim, however, when the case was fixed for the evidence of the defendant, they did not appear and were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 22.2.2008. subsequently, the trial court passed the ex-parte decree on 19.5.2008. On filing of the execution, the defendants No.1, 1A, 1B- judgment debtors (now petitioners) have filed objection petition to the effect that the petitioner Savita Kansal is shown as wife of Jagdish Chander Kansal, whereas, she is wife of Varinder Kumar Kansal, therefore, no effective decree could be passed against her. It was also urged that the objectors were not duly served in the case and Jagdish Chander Kansal is shown to be the deceased but his legal heirs were not brought on record. In reply, the decree holder controverted all the alleglations and contended that the judgment debtors were duly served; they appeared in the court, but later on, they withheld themselves. As regards the mistake with regard to husband's name, it was stated that there was a clerical mistake in the judgment and decree which was got rectified by him vide order dated Civil Revision No. 7673 of 2011 (O&M) -2- *** 26.11.2008. Heard. Decree for recovery of huge amount of `40,93,340/- along with interest was passed by the court way back in the year 2008 which is hanging satisfaction before the executing court. The objections raised by the objectors are superfluous. In this case, the objectors duly appeared in court, filed the written statement and later, they were proceeded against ex- parte by the court, as they left the case in between and preferred to stay back instead of leading their evidence. The objections are superfluous filed just to defy the decree. Resultantly, the instant petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed with costs of `10,000/-. December 13, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge