IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 369 of 2011 Date of decision: 18.4.2011 Surjit Kaur and others … Petitioners versus Niranjan Kaur and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Sarwan Singh, Sr.Advocate, with Mr. N.S.Rapri, Advocate, for the petitioners ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioners, i.e. legal representatives of late Gurbax Singh are the decree-holders. They are aggrieved with the order dated 4.9.2010 passed by the Civil Judge(Jr.Division), Jalandhar, by virtue of which their execution petition has been dismissed as fully satisfied. The facts, in brief, are that the suit filed by Gurbax Singh (since deceased) was decreed restraining the defendants from demolishing 'AAR' (water-channel) abutting land comprising Khasra No. 28/1, 21/1/3 and 22//16/2 and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the portion of AAR (water-channel) demolished by them from point A to B, from the date of decree. The legal representatives of Gurbax Singh filed an execution petition. Judgment-debtors filed objections thereto, which were dismissed on 17.11.1998. Ultimately, with the consensus of the parties, a Local Commissioner (Naib Tehsildar, Adampur) was appointed with a direction to restore the AAR (water-channel) in accordance with the directions contained in the said decree. Accordingly, Gurmeet Singh Nadala, Naib Tehsildar, Adampur, after doing the needful, submitted his report dated 22.10.2009. The decree-holders then filed objections to the said report. Reply to the objections was filed by the judgment-debtors. Issues were framed after recording of evidence. Vide the impugned order dated C.R. No. 369 of 2011 -2- 4.9.2010, the objections were dismissed and the execution petition was disposed of being fully satisfied. Hence, the present revision by the decree- holders. Heard. Counsel for the petitioner has levelled allegations against Gurmeet Singh Nadala, Naib Tehsildar, who was appointed as Local Commissioner, being close to the judgment-debtors, but the said allegations have not been substantiated. Rather, the impugned order indicates that Gurmeet Singh Nadala, Naib Tehsildar, who was appointed as Local Commissioner, visited the spot. His statement suggests that he called both the parties along with respectables of the village on 22.10.1999. There had been a compromise, Exhibit JDW/1, which has been proved by him and now annexed as Annexure P-5 with this petition. The signatures of Gurbax Singh (since deceased) on the compromise-deed dated 22.10.1999 have not been disputed. The Local Commissioner, Gurmeet Singh Nadala, has categorically stated that the under-ground pipes were laid with the consent of both the parties and accordingly, the water-channel was restored and the decree was satisfied as per compromise entered into between the parties on 22.10.1999. He also stated that the water was flowing easily through the said pipes and was irrigating the fields of the decree-holders and that the under-ground pipes were laid as per the site plan. The plea of counsel for the petitioner that Gurbax Singh (since deceased) was made to sign the compromise-deed under pressure and influence, has also not been substantiated by any concrete evidence. The statement of Local Commissioner, Gurmeet Singh Nadala, Naib Tehsildar, coupled with his report, Exhibits JDW/2A indicates that the decree has been fully satisfied. There is absolutely no infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, no interference is called for. The revision petition is dismissed. April 18, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE