IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 853 of 2011 Date of decision: 13.5.2011 Balkar Singh … Petitioner versus Kirpal Singh and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. K.S.Rekhi, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner Balkar Singh is aggrieved with order dated 23.8.20.10 passed by the Additional Civil Judge(Sr.Division), Ajnala, whereby his objections have been dismissed. Kirpal Singh is the decree-holder whereas Gurdit Singh etc. are the judgment-debtors. The petitioner claims that the land originally was owned by the Rehabilitation Department and was allotted to Gurdit Singh but was subsequently cancelled vide Rapat Roznamcha dated 9.7.1964 and in this way, the Rehabilitation Department remained the owner of the land in question and he-objector is in possession as tenant under the Government. Gurdit Singh was not competent to make any agreement of sale and the sale-deed has been wrongly executed in the name of the decree- holder. It is further claimed that 58/120 share out of the land was sold to him vide sale-deed dated 7.6.2005 by the judgment-debtors,namely, Bachan Singh, Smt. Bachni and Smt. Jeevan for which mutation No. 297 has also been sanctioned. The only argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the points now being raised have not been discussed by the Court in the impugned order while dismissing the objections. C.R. No. 853 of 2011 -2- Heard. The Court below though in facts has mentioned the pleas taken by the present petitioner-objector but there is no discussion on these aspects; rather what has been discussed is that the judgment-debtors were not ex-parte as they have now claimed in the judgment and decree and this issue was never raised by the present petitioner in the objections. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the Court concerned to decide the objections afresh, purely on merits, in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. May 13, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE