Civil Revision No. 3363 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 3363 of 2006 Date of Decision: 19.12.2008 Rajeev Kumar …Petitioner Versus Pawan Kumar and Others ... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. D.D. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhwinder Singh Sudan, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. P.C. Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5 Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) It was noticed by this Court that this case be heard along with Regular Second Appeal No. 1759 of 2006. In view of the fact that earlier, objection petitions filed by Nanak Chand and Kanta Bawa for same relief have been dismissed, there is nothing on the record to hold that the present revision petition be heard along with Regular Second Appeal No. 1759 of 2006. Since Nanak Chand and Kanta Bawa failed to prove that the Civil Revision No. 3363 of 2006 2 demised premises belongs to Hindu Undivided Family, petitioner also cannot raise the same objection which has been earlier adjudicated upon. In the Regular Second Appeal, the question raised is other way that the property is self-acquired property of Nanak Chand. In the present revision petition, Pawan Kumar, decree-holder, had filed execution for ejectment of Gokul Krishan, tenant from the demised premises, which consist of one room, verandah, bathroom on ground floor in House No. 119, Parade Mohalla, Kalka. Pawan Kumar is son of Nanak Chand. Nanak Chand's another daughter is Kanta Bawa. Rajeev Kumar, petitioner in the present revision petition, claim that he was brought up by Nanak Chand as his son. Pawan Kumar, decree- holder, filed an execution petition and warrants of possession were issued in his favour. Nanak Chand filed objections which were dismissed in 2002. Order of ejectment in the present case was passed on 20.9.1999. Thereafter, Kanta Bawa daughter of Nanak Chand filed objections. The same were also dismissed. A Co-ordinate Bench while deciding Civil Revision No. 4530 of of 2005 titled as “Kanta Bawa v. Pawan Kumar and Sanjay Kumar” held that since Kanta Bawa was claiming her rights in the property through Nanak Chand, the fact that Nanak Chand failed, nothing remain for Kanta Bawa to agitate. In the present case, status of Rajeev Kumar, petitioner, is even worse. He claim that he was brought up by Nanak Chand as his son. Therefore, he is raising same objections which were raised by Nanak Chand and Kanta Bawa. It is sad that decree-holder Pawan Kumar who got decree in Civil Revision No. 3363 of 2006 3 his favour in 1994 is yet to obtain possession of the premises. Therefore, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 19, 2008 “DK”