C.R. No. 2278 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … C.R. No. 2278 of 2009 Date of decision: May 29,2009 Gurdial Singh and another ..Petitioners Versus Harinderjit Singh Walia s/o Harjeet Singh Walia ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Vishal Goel, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. A.S.Gill, Advocate for the respondent. ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. The suit of plaintiff-respondent for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement was decreed against the petitioners vide judgment and decree dated 26.8.2006. Appeal against the same was dismissed by the District Judge, Kapurthala vide judgment and decree dated 18.8.2007. The plaintiff-respondent filed an execution of the judgment and decree dated 26.8.2006 passed in his favour. On 28.3.2009, the counsel appearing on behalf of the judgment debtors/petitioners made a statement before the executing court stating therein that the judgment debtor does not want to file the objections, hence the court appointed Local Commissioner to execute the sale deed as per the decree of specific performance vide impugned order (Annexure P-1). Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the counsel for the judgment debtor/petitioner was never instructed to make such a statement before the executing court and his act and conduct was against the interest of the petitioners. Since the petitioner was confined to bed because of his ailment and therefore, he was even unable to C.R. No. 2278 of 2009 2 contact his lawyer to whom he had instructed to file Regular Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.8.2007 passed by the District Judge, Kapurthala and thus in these circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and petitioner is entitled to opportunity to defend himself by filing objections to the execution. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. I find no merit in this revision petition. No doubt, petitioner has attached some medical reports showing his ailment. However, the fact remains that he was represented by a lawyer before the executing court. There is nothing on record to suggest that the aforesaid lawyer who represented him was not authorized by him to make a statement before the court. Even otherwise, admittedly, the decree which is sought to be impugned has been passed against the petitioners. Even in the present revision petition, the petitioner has not raised any valid objection to the execution of the decree except the factum of his ailment etc. Thus I find no merit in this revision petition. Dismissed. May 29, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE