CR No.7023 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.7023 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 27.10.2010 **** Sher Singh @ Kheru and another . . . . Petitioners Vs. Tara Devi and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.Surender Dhull, Advocate for the petitioners. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. This revision petition is filed by Sher Singh @ Kheru s/o Samey Singh and Patel Singh son of Partap Singh against the order dated 7.9.2010 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Guhla and order dated 20.10.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Kaithal by which objection petition filed by them in the execution of decree has been dismissed. Briefly stated, respondents Civil Suit No.65 of 1993 for possession was decreed on 31.01.2000 by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Guhla. In the said suit, Sher Singh @ Kheru (petitioner No.1) was defendant No.16 and Patel Singh father of Partap Singh was defendant No.8. They both did not file written statement and were also proceeded against ex parte. As a matter of fact, the suit was not contested by the present petitioners. The decree of the trial Court dated 31.01.2000 was upheld in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Kaithal vide his judgment and decree dated 04.08.2000 and was further upheld by the High Court in Regular Second Appeal No.3657 of 2000 vide order dated 23.7.2008. However, Supreme Court granted ex parte stay to the other judgment debtors but it was vacated on 7.7.2010. In the meanwhile, decree-holders filed execution application on 05.08.2000 in order to CR No.7023 of 2010 -2- execute the decree dated 31.01.2000. The present petitioners filed objections in the execution which are almost similar to the objections which have now been filed but the said objections were dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gulha and the appeal against it was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Kaithal on the ground that they should have resorted to the remedy of revision petition. The judgment- debtors then filed Civil Revision No.4512 of 2001 which was dismissed by this Court on 04.05.2009. In this interregnum, the execution petition filed by the decree-holders was dismissed for non-prosecution, therefore, they again filed execution application in which the present petitioners again filed objections. It was argued before the Courts below that the objection petition has been filed under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) but it was observed that it could have been filed only by a 3rd party whereas the petitioners were party to the suit. The plea taken by the petitioners that they were tenants in the suit property also could not cut much ice as the Court had held that petitioners had the opportunity to contest the suit in which neither they had filed written statement nor did they appear. It was also observed that they had earlier tried their luck by filing similar objections which were dismissed upto the High Court. Thus, in the background of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by imposing costs of `3300/-. Aggrieved against the orders of the Courts below, the present revision petition has been filed in which the only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they are tenants in possession and cannot be dispossessed in execution of the decree. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the available record. The petitioners have in fact over-reached the Court by filing the objections again in the execution petition which stood dismissed upto this Court. Moreover, the petitioners are not the 3rd party to the suit because they were defendants No.8 and 16, who did not choose to contest the suit by filing of written statement and had rather absented from the Court and allowed themselves to be proceeded against ex parte. CR No.7023 of 2010 -3- Thus, in my view, there is no substance in the present revision petition as the petitioners have been making one effort or the other in frustrating the execution of the decree for possession which was passed as far back as on 31.01.2000. The revision petition is, thus, dismissed with costs of `5,000/-. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) October 27, 2010 JUDGE Vivek