C.R. No. 4128 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4128 of 2009 Date of Decision: November 26, 2009 Harbans Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Parkash Singh and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff-petitioner had obtained a decree for permanent injunction dated January 20, 2004 against the defendant- respondents restraining them to interfere in the rooms, court-yard, stairs and kitchen. An application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC filed by the petitioner on the allegation that the respondents have disobeyed the order of injunction and forcibly entered the house of the petitioner and threw away the house-hold C.R. No. 4128 of 2009 [2] articles and threatened that they will dispossess the petitioner whenever they get a chance has been dismissed. The Executing Court has dismissed the application on the ground that neither any site plan has been placed on record nor the exact date of the incident has been mentioned in the petition when the house hold- articles of the petitioner were threw out from the Court yard. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been misreading of the evidence and that the application has been wrongly dismissed. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned order, I am of the opinion that it is not the case of the petitioner that on a particular day, date and time he was dispossessed from the property which was subject matter of the suit. The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence produced before it has arrived at a conclusion that the respondent- judgment debtors have not disobeyed the decree dated January 20, 2004. On the basis of the contradictions in the statements of the brother of the petitioner Sakattar Singh and another witness Dilbagh Singh and fair appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties, the trial Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that there are vague allegations of disobedience of the decree. No ground is made out for interference. Dismissed. November 26, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE