IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2004 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 26.3.2010 Raghbir Singh ......Petitioner(s) Versus Hukam Singh and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Surender Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.7756-CII of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CR No.2004 of 2010 Aggrieved from the order dated 13.1.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Ganaur in an application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC whereby in execution of a decree dated 8.8.2002 passed in Civil Suit No.705 of 2001 the petitioner(defendant No.2) who has been restrained from raising construction over plot No.493 has approached this Court by way of present revision petition. As per the averments, respondent No.1 filed civil suit No.705 of 2001 alleging himself to be the owner of the plot in dispute on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 31.1.1995, restraining the petitioner and others from interfering in his peaceful possession and dispossessing him from the plot in dispute and from causing obstruction in the construction of his house over the said plot. The aforesaid civil suit was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Ganaur vide judgment and decree dated 8.8.2002 and the petitioner and proforma respondents were restrained permanently from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-respondent over the plot in dispute and from dispossessing him CR No.2004 of 2010(O&M) -2- and causing obstruction in the construction of the house of the plaintiff over the aforesaid plot. Respondent No.1 moved an application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC submitting that petitioner and proforma respondents were causing obstruction in raising the construction over the plot in dispute in which judgment and decree had already been passed in his favour. The aforesaid application was contested by the petitioner. Issues were framed. Parties led their respective evidence. After hearing both the parties, the Executing Court vide impugned order accepted the application of respondent No.1 partly to the effect that the petitioner and proforma respondents were restrained from raising any sort of construction over the plot in question in terms of judgment and decree dated 8.8.2002 passed in Civil Suit No.705 of 2001. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that under the garb of judgment and decree dated 8.8.2002, respondent No.1 is trying to extend the boundaries of his plot, as he cannot raise construction beyond the boundaries defined in the sale deed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. However, I find no merit in the contention raised by him. There is no evidence that respondent No.1 is extending boundaries and is raising construction beyond his plot. Moreover, the Executing Court has restrained the petitioner only from raising any sort of construction over the plot No.493 in terms of judgment and decree dated 8.8.2002 passed in Civil Suit 705 of 2001. No fault can be found with the aforesaid order of the Executing Court. Dismissed. March 26, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE