Civil Revision No. 4222 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4222 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.7.2010 Lachhman Dass @ Lachhman Singh .....Petitioner Versus Firm Chenab Rice Mills, Malerkotla and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Saurabh Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) The plaintiff-respondent’ suit for specific performance was decreed on 28.3.1992. The execution of the said decree was sought by the decree holder on 31.1.2002. The Judgment Debtor-the present petitioner filed objections to the execution of the said decree. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the parties entered into settlement on 5.10.2007. As per the settlement, the Judgment Debtor withdrew his objections and agreed to execute the sale deed within one month on old rates, in accordance with law. Since the sale deed was not executed within the period of one month, the decree holder filed an application on 6.11.2007 for Civil Revision No. 4222 of 2010 (O&M) [2] revival of the execution petition. On such application, the learned Executing Court passed an order on 17.4.2010, dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner and directing the decree holder to place on record draft sale deeds. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the application for revival of the execution petition should have been filed within three years of the filing of the original application i.e. within three years from 31.1.2002. Such argument is purportedly based upon Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which contemplates that where no specific period of limitation is prescribed, such application shall be filed within a period of three years. However, I do not find any merit in the said argument. The decree holder has sought execution of the decree within the period of limitation, when the execution was instituted on 31.1.2002. It was the during the pendency of such execution, the parties entered into settlement, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner were dismissed as withdrawn and the petitioner agreed to execute the sale deed within one month. It was only on the failure of the Judgment Debtor to execute the sale deed, the application for revival of the execution petition was filed. In fact, the cause of action to file the revival application arose on the failure of the Judgment Debtor to execute the sale deed i.e. within one month from 5.10.2007. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Executing Court, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. Civil Revision No. 4222 of 2010 (O&M) [3] [HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 28.7.2010 ds