-1- Civil Revision No.1117 of 2011 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: February 22, 2011. Civil Revision No.1117 of 2011 (O&M). Dilip ... Petitioner VERSUS Smt. Banto Devi and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. J.K. Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioner Dilip is aggrieved against the order dated 3.1.2011 (Annexure P-6) passed by the executing Court whereby the objection petition filed by him (petitioner) has been dismissed. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order, I do not see any reason warranting -2- Civil Revision No.1117 of 2011 (O&M). interference in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the preliminary judgment and decree dated 2.2.1991 and final judgment and decree dated 31.5.1993 are not legally valid and enforceable as the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, the land in dispute being agricultural land. As observed by the executing Court in the impugned order, no documentary record was placed on record by the petitioner to show that the suit property was/is agricultural land, which was/is being cultivated. The petitioner did not produce any Khasra Girdawri, Nehri Girdawri etc. to show that the suit land was agricultural land. No doubt, as per report of the Local Commissioner, who was appointed by the executing Court vide order dated 12.5.2010, the suit land comprises of separate parcels of land and that whole of the suit property is lying vacant, but there is nothing on record to prove that the suit land as agricultural land. Besides, it may be mentioned here that preliminary judgment and decree dated 2.2.1991 and final judgment and decree dated 31.5.1993 could not be challenged in the execution proceedings as the application filed by the Judgment Debtors under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the preliminary judgment and decree dated 2.2.1991 and final judgment and decree dated 31.5.1993 had been dismissed vide order dated 12.5.2010. During the course of arguments, it was also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner-objector that Sant Ram -3- Civil Revision No.1117 of 2011 (O&M). (Judgment Debtor No.1), had suffered decree dated 14.5.1990 in favour of the Judgment Debtor No.2, namely, Lajwanti in respect of the suit property and on the basis of this decree, Lajwanti had transferred her acquired right in favour of the petitioner/objector by way of gift deed dated 14.5.1992; meaning thereby when the preliminary judgment and decree dated 2.2.1991 and final judgment and decree dated 31.5.1993 were passed Sant Ram (Judgment Debtor No.1) had no right or title over the suit property. After giving a thoughtful consideration to the above argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/objector, I do not find any merit therein. Suit which led to the passing of the preliminary judgment and decree dated 2.2.1991, was filed on 24.2.1990. The suit in which Sant Ram (Judgment Debtor No.1) suffered decree dated 14.5.1990 in favour of the Lajwanti (Judgment Debtor No.2) in respect of the suit property was filed on 7.3.1990 i.e during the pendency of the suit for preliminary decree, which, as stated above, had been filed on 24.2.1990. Therefore, neither the judgment and decree dated 14.5.1990 nor the gift deed dated 14.5.1992 had, in any way, affected the rights of the Decree Holder qua the suit property. Dismissed. ( MOHINDER PAL ) February 22, 2011. JUDGE ak