IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 816 of 2007 Date of Decision: 3.7.2009 Gursharan Singh ....Petitioner. Versus Inderpal Singh and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. JPS Sandhu, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner who is one of the judgment-debtors is aggrieved against the order dated 13.9.2006 passed by the Executing Court dismissing the objection petition filed by him. A decree was passed in favour of Inderpal Singh on 26.4.2005 for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- as earnest money along with Rs.1,00,000/- as damages and costs of the suit. The defendants were given six months time to make payment thereof, but the judgment- debtors had failed to pay the decretal amount. The petitioner/judgment-debtor No.2 had raised an objection that since the decree was passed against all the defendants, he alone could not have been held liable for the entire amount and there being four judgment-debtors, only 1/4th share of the decretal amount could have been recovered from him. The said objection was dismissed by the Executing Court CR No. 816 of 2007 -2- holding that the decree was passed against all the defendants including the petitioner/judgment-debtor No.2 and the decree-holder is at liberty to get the decree executed against any of the judgment-debtors. It would be advantageous to refer to the judgment which had been passed on 26.4.2004. The relief clause in the judgment is to the following effect:- “In view of my findings on the above issues, suit of the plaintiff succeeds and is decreed with costs. A decree for recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- as refund of earnest money and Rs.1,00,000/- as stipulated damages is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Defendants are directed to pay the decretal amount to the plaintiff within six months. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to the record room.” A perusal of the aforesaid clearly shows that the decree had been passed against all the defendants in the suit and was not restricted to any particular defendant. The petitioner/judgment-debtor being defendant No.2 is, thus, liable for the payment of the decretal amount. In view of the above, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. July 3, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE