IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 638 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 1, 2010 Om Parkash. …Petitioner Versus Jagdish and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present: Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. S.D. Anand, J. The impugned order non-suited the petitioner herein who filed objections to resist the execution of the impugned decree obtained by respondent – decree holder against the judgment debtors. At the very outset, it is vehemently argued by the petitioner herein that he is a third party and has no thing to do with the parties to the cause and further that he had purchased 127 sq. yards area from Sardara (one of the co- owners) for a consideration of Rs.1500/- and he had been put in possession thereof as well. It is noticed in the opening para of the impugned order itself that the petitioner herein is a son of judgment debtor No.1. The learned Trial Court further noticed that the petitioner herein had initially filed a plea under Order 1 Rule C.R. No. 638 of 2010 10 C.P.C. (to obtain his impleadment as a party, to the main suit). That application was dismissed on 03.09.2002. He filed a revision petition before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn. It also noticed that the petitioner herein is not in possession of any documentation supportive of the plea of title. The learned Trial Court recorded a number of items in support of the view it obtained to invalidate the plea raised by the petitioner herein, and also the reasoning recorded in support therefor. The findings and also the reasoning deserve affirmation and it is so ordered accordingly. The impugned order does not suffer from either illegality or perversity. The petition is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. February 01, 2010 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 2