C.R. No.177 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.177 of 2008 Date of Decision: 14.1.2008 Noordin Tailor and others .....Petitioners Vs. Jagir Singh and another ...Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.R.N. Ojha, Advocate for the petitioners. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Challenge in this present petition is, to an order dated 4.11.2004, passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khahar, dismissing the objections filed by the petitioners. Admittedly, a decree of permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with the possession of respondent no.1 was passed on 18.11.1998. Respondent no.1 filed a petition, praying that as the petitioners had failed to obey the decree, they be sent to civil prison. The petitioners filed objections, alleging therein that the decree was infructuous, as the petitioners had relinquished possession in favour of the Wakf Board, which in turn, had executed a lease deed in their favour and delivered possession to them. The Executing Court, however, dismissed these objections, vide the impugned order dated 4.11.2004. Counsel for the petitioners contends that respondent no.1 relinquished possession of the disputed property, in favour of the Wakf C.R. No.177 of 2008 2 Board. The Wakf Board, thereafter leased out the property to the petitioners. As the decree sought to be executed was infructuous, the objections could not have been dismissed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the impugned order and the paper book. A perusal of the impugned order, as also the paper book does not disclose the existence of any prima facie evidence, as would suggest that respondent no.1 relinquished possession of the disputed property, in favour of the Wakf Board or the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners failed to refer to any material, apart from this bald assertion that respondent no.1 relinquished possession. The objections were, therefore, rightly dismissed by the Executing Court. Consequently, as the impugned order does not suffer from any error of law or of jurisdiction, as would warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the present petition is dismissed. 14.1.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE