IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5526 of 2010 Date of Decision: 21.4.2011 Urmila Devi . . .Petitioner Versus Kuldip Kaur . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.V.K. Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against order dated 8.6.2010 by which an application filed by the Judgment-Debtor to adjourn the execution proceedings on the ground that the JD had filed an application under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.). It was alleged in the application that JD has filed objection in the execution to which reply was filed by the decree-holder which is not signed by the decree-holder (Kuldeep Kaur) but it is signed by her son as Kuldeep Kaur. The learned Court below dismissed the application on the ground that Kuldeep Kaur has never challenged the signatures appearing on the reply, therefore, there is no question of impersonation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the signatures are not appended by the decree-holder and has been appended by her son which is a case for impersonation and for that purpose learned Executing Court should have adjourn the proceedings so that the JD who has taken separate course of action under Section 340 Cr.P.C. could have completed that proceedings. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order from which I have not found any reason to take a view different from the view taken by the learned Civil Court, who is executing the order of eviction against the tenant because of the signatures on the reply has not been challenged by a decree-holder or herself and until and unless she challenges the signatures having been forged, there was no reason for the Court to adjourn the execution proceedings to await the decision of the application filed under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C filed by the JD. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such the same is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) APRIL 21, 2011 JUDGE Vivek