IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3449 of 2010 Date of decision: 3.8.2011 Malkit Singh … Petitioner versus Swaran Singh and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner was the plaintiff. Suit was decreed on 26.10.1998 in his favour. He moved an execution application under Order 21 rule 32, Code of Civil Procedure, that the judgment-debtor Swaran Singh violated the said judgment and decree and as such, his property was attached which was subsequently released. In another application filed by the judgment-debtor-petitioner, warrants of arrest were issued for which the judgment-debtor Swaran Singh filed a revision in this Court on 9.3.2009 wherein the order of arrest was ordered to be withdrawn and it was disposed of with various directions including that the Court below shall direct the lane to be inspected by the revenue Authority concerned of the concerned Tehsil to carry out measurements and ascertain if there is any encroachment into any portion of the lane and if so, the Bailiff will have the power to remove such obstructions. The Tehsildar after having inspected the spot, submitted his report dated 24.8.2009 indicating that the street in question is private one and there is no field plan with the Revenue Department and it is difficult to prove the encroachment as per record. On the strength of the said report, judgment-debtor sought dismissal of the application but the Court below after having observed that since there is no clear report from the Revenue Authorities, the application cannot be dismissed, has directed the parties to seek further directions from the High Court. Hence, this revision by the decree-holder. C.R. No. 3449 of 2010 -2- Heard. No further directions are required to be passed by this Court in view of the directions so contained in this Court’s order dated 9.3.2009 while disposing of Civil Revision No. 6231 of 2008. The Court below shall proceed further at its own end to settle the controversy but in accordance with law after due notice to both the parties. The case stands remitted back to the Court concerned for the said purpose. Revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. August 3, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE