C.R. No.2198 of 2006 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.2198 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.08.2009 Dev Kumar .....Petitioner Versus Hari Chand ...Respondents Present: None for the parties. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The order in execution is as strange as it is untenable. A decree had been passed in favour of four persons namely Subhash Chand, Hari Chand, Dev Kumar and Naresh declaring the plaintiffs to be entitled to the property in a suit instituted against Laxmi Devi, who was their mother. The trial Court decreed the suit, which contained merely the relief of declaration. No consequential relief had also been asked for or granted. 2. One of the decree-holders, Hari Chand filed an execution petition against yet another decree-holder, Dev Kumar by citing him as a respondent- judgment debtor and sought for a prayer to get the decree dated 04.10.1997 executed and a direction against Dev Kumar to hand over possession of the property. Dev Kumar was not a judgment debtor, who was answerable to deliver possession to Hari Chand. There was not even a decree for recovery of possession. As I C.R. No.2198 of 2006 (O&M) -2- have already pointed out that the decree was merely for the relief of declaration and the execution petition was not maintainable in the manner it had been filed. The petition ought to have been rejected at the threshold. The order passed by the Executing Court is untenable. It is set aside and the civil revision is allowed. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 13, 2009 Pankaj*