IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2515 of 2011 Date of decision: 19.4.2011 Pirthi Singh … Petitioner versus Madan Lal @ Madan Singh … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. R.S.Sangwan, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner is the judgment-debtor. He is aggrieved with the order dated 16.2.2011 by virtue of which his objections have been dismissed. The facts, in brief, are that there had been a decree dated 27.9.2005 for Rs.30,000/- passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Mohindergarh, against the petitioner. He filed objections in the execution application that he has already made payment of Rs.40,000/- out of the Court to the satisfaction of the said decree vide receipt dated 22.6.2008. The said objections have been dismissed on the ground that the receipt is not stamped. Hence, the present revision. Heard. Copy of the receipt which has been annexed with the revision petition as Annexure P-4 indicates that it contains the thumb- impression of Madan Lal-decree-holder in regard to having received a sum of Rs.45,000/- in the presence of scribe Om Parkash Sharma and two witnesses, namely, Ram Niwash and Rajinder Singh. The decree-holder though denies the same; however, it was obligatory upon the executing Court to have taken some evidence before deciding the objection petition filed by the judgment-debtor supported by the said receipt. In view of the said fact, the present revision petition is allowed and the order under C.R. No. 2515 of 2011 -2- challenge is set aside. The executing Court is directed to take some brief evidence in support of the stand of the parties and then proceed to decide the objection petition filed by the present petitioner, in accordance with law. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this revision is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If the respondent is summoned to contest this litigation, he will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondent that if he feels dissatisfied with this order, he may move an application to recall the same. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. April 19, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE