CR No.1453 of 2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1453 of 2011 (O&M). Decided on: March 01, 2011. Bhupinder Singh. .. Petitioner VERSUS Sudershan Singh and another. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Anish Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) This is a revision petition against the order dated 16.08.2010, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kapurthala, and the order dated 21.12.2010, passed by the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, dismissing the objections of the petitioner against the eviction decree passed against Balwant . . . 1 CR No.1453 of 2011 (O&M) Singh respondent No.2, in a suit for possession, filed by respondent No.1, Sudershan Singh. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that, no doubt, the petitioner-objector is real brother of judgment debtor Balwant Singh, respondent No.2, but he is in occupation of the shop which is adjacent to a plot which has been in possession of his real brother Balwant Singh. It is contended that the nature of the property and the rights of the petitioner-objector have not been fairly considered by the Courts below. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and gone through the orders passed by the Courts below. In the objections which had been raised by the petitioner, it was specifically mentioned by the petitioner-objector that the property regarding which decree for possession has been passed is a big hall type shop and that the portion in possession of the objector is not an open plot but part of the big hall shop which shop was taken on rent by the objector from the owner-decree holder, Sudershan Singh, respondent No.1. The original rent note was claimed by the petitioner-objector to have been lost and not traceable. He admits that there is no wall between the alleged shop in his possession and the property regarding which eviction order has been passed. It is not disputed that the objector is the real brother of judgment debtor. It is apparent that both of them are running the same business in the premises regarding which decree for possession has been passed. The objections have been thoroughly considered by the executing Court and the appellate . . . 2 CR No.1453 of 2011 (O&M) Court after framing of issues by the executing Court. The order passed by the executing Court is to be considered as a decree under Order 21 Rule 103 CPC. The appeal filed against the said order which is in the form of a decree has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court. The scope of interference, in the peculiar circumstances of this case in revision petition, is meagre. I do not find any ground to interfere in the orders passed by the Courts below in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE March 01, 2011. rka . . . 3