Civil Revision No.5740 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5740 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 20th September, 2011 Daljit Kaur & others .... Petitioners Versus Shankar Dass and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present : Mr. S. S. Toor, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * * L.N.MITTAL, J. (ORAL) CM No.22954-CII of 2011 This is application for impleading legal representatives of Jarnail Singh defendant No.5 in the civil suit. It is alleged that Jarnail Singh has died during the pendency of the suit leaving behind widow and two sons mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application as his legal heirs. The application is accompanied by affidavit. Accordingly the application is allowed subject to all just exceptions and persons mentioned in paragraph two of the application are ordered to be brought on record as legal representatives of Jarnail Singh- defendant No.5 since deceased for the purpose of the instant revision petition. Main Case This is revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing order dated 05.08.2011 passed by the executing Court i.e. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balachaur, thereby dismissing objections filed by judgment debtors No.1 and 4 i.e. Daljit Kaur and Paramjit Civil Revision No.5740 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Kaur in the execution petition preferred by decree holders Shankar Dass and Hans Raj, respondents No.1 and 2 herein. Suit of respondents No.1 and 2 herein was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 15.11.2007 for possession of 8 Kanal 7 Marlas land. In execution petition filed for execution of the said decree, JDs No.1 and 4 preferred objection petition alleging that in Civil Suit No.171 of 2010 filed by them and others, status quo order has been passed regarding the suit land and the instant execution petition is counter blast to the suit. Decree holders filed reply controverting the averments made in the objection petition. It was alleged that JDs are in illegal possession of the suit land and Civil Suit No.171 of 2010 is not regarding the same land which is involved in the execution petition. Learned executing Court vide impugned order dated 05.08.2011 dismissed the objection petition filed by the JDs. Feeling aggrieved, JDs have preferred the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that in Civil Suit filed by the JDs herein, status quo order has been passed regarding the suit land and therefore, the execution cannot proceed. The contention is completely misconceived and untenable. Firstly land involved in the suit regarding which status quo order has been passed is not the same land as involved in the execution petition. Copy of plaint Annexure P-1 vide which JDs have instituted their aforesaid suit reveals that plaintiffs of the said suit themselves pleaded that they have purchased the land of their suit whereas the land in which the decree under execution was passed has no concern with the Civil Revision No.5740 of 2011 (O&M) -3- land purchased by the plaintiffs of suit Annexure P-1. This plea in plaint Annexure P-1 raised by the petitioners herein themselves reveals that the land involved in that suit is different from the land involved in the instant execution petition. Secondly, the decree sought to be executed has not been challenged in suit Annexure P-1. Thirdly, status quo if any passed in the said suit would not have any bearing on the execution of the decree. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the suit of decree holders herein could not have been decreed as vendors of the petitioners herein were not impleaded as party to the suit. The contention is very frivolous and meritless. The decree sought to be executed cannot be challenged by the judgment debtors on any such ground. All defences which the JDs could take in the suit stand adjudicated by the decree. JDs cannot resist the execution of the decree on this ground. Decree was passed on 15.11.2007 i.e. almost 4 years ago, but the decree has not yet been executed. The JDs being in possession of the suit land are delaying the execution of the decree for obvious reasons. There is no infirmity, much less illegality or perversity in the impugned order of the executing Court. The impugned order does not suffer from lack of jurisdiction nor the Court has refused to exercise jurisdiction which vested in it. Consequently, the impugned order does not warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The revision petition is completely meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 20th September, 2011 'raj'