Civil Revision No. 1306 of 2010 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1306 of 2010 Date of decision : 2.3.2010 Vimal Kumar Petitioner Versus Nisha Rani and another Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate for the petitioner S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner-objector is none else or other than a real brother of respondent-judgment debtor-Dalbir Chand against whom an order for ejectment from the tenanted premises had been granted by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 12.3.2008. The order was in favour of respondent-landlady Nisha Rani. The order was affirmed in appeal by the learned Appellate Authority, vide order dated 29.1.2010. In the course of the execution proceedings, the petitioner herein filed a plea under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for being impleaded as a party. The plea was declined by the learned Executing Court. The objector-petitioner filed a revision petition which was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench (Ajay Tiwari, J.) on 6.11.2009 with a direction to the Executing Court “to take a decision on the objections, in accordance with law, on the date fixed.” The objection petition came to be negatived by the Civil Revision No. 1306 of 2010 -2- *** learned Executing Court, vide order dated 7.11.2009. It was found, as a fact, that the objection petition had been filed with a view to delay the execution of the ejectment action granted in favour of the respondent-landlady and against the real brother of the petitioner- objector. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner-objector that the impugned ejectment action was a result of blatant collusion between the respondent-landlady and the purported tenant-respondent because the latter is an estranged sibling and he wants to hurt the economic interest of the petitioner-objector. The plea raised is completely denuded of merit. It is not a case where exparte proceedings had been ordered against the tenant. It is also not a case wherein the Rent Controller made a short thrift of the matter. There is nothing on record to indicate that the ejectment action came about in the proceedings which could at all be indicative to be hasty in character. Not that it would have, per se, affected the adjudication under challenge, it requires notice that there also is no material on record to prove that there is no estrangement between the petitioner-objector and his real brother i.e. respondent-tenant. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. March 02, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE