Civil Revision No. 5188 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5188 of 2009 Date of decision: 31st March, 2010 Gurdeep Kaur and another .........Petitioners Versus Ram Chander Bajaj ........Respondent Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the respondent. Mahesh Grover,J. This revision petition is directed against order dated 4.08.2009, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner against order dated 2.03.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Panipat, was dismissed. The respondent is the decree holder who had preferred execution proceedings pursuant to a Civiil court decree passed in his favour vide judgment and decree dated 19.10.2004, passed in Civil appeal No. 32 of 2003. Initially, the prayer in the suit preferred by the said decree holder was declined by Civil court Civil Revision No. 5188 of 2009 -2- vide its order dated 18.12.1998, passed in Civil suit No. 1068 of 1994. In the said execution bearing no. 7/8 of 2005, one Rajinder Singh(since deceased) had filed objections that he was owner in possession of the suit property. He pleaded that he is the son of the Judgment Debtor namely Gurbachan Singh and was living separately from him in the suit property and was carrying on business in the same premises. He further pleaded that his father had no right, title or interest in the suit property. The same was contested by the decree holder who stated that the judgment debtor Gurbachan Singh had got the objections filed through his son Rajinder Singh. The sole purpose was to delay the execution and stall the handing over of possession to the respondent. The objections were dismissed. After dismissal of objections by the Executing Court on 3.02.2006, the said objector preferred an appeal bearing no. 16 of 2006, which was accepted by the Court of the then Additional District Judge, Panipat, vide order dated 27.02.2006 and the matter was remanded back to the learned trial court to frame appropriate issues and decide the matter afresh. The Executing court thereafter, framed the issues and decided the matter afresh, in accordance with the directives of the appellate court and in favour of the respondent decree holder and the objections were dismissed and as a consequence, the warrants of possession of the suit property were ordered to be issued for 11.04.2009. Civil Revision No. 5188 of 2009 -3- Aggrieved by the order dated 2.03.2009, the objector Rajinder Singh (since deceased) through his legal representatives filed the appeal from which the impugned order has emerged. A perusal of the sale deed reveals that the objections have rightly been dismissed. Rajinder Singh the original objector had claimed the property to be his own which he purportedly received from his father Gurbachan Singh. The impugned order however, reveals that the suit property bearing No. 541/R was sold to the respondent and the judgment debtor Gurbachan Singh was the attesting witness to the sale deed and he had also admitted vide writing Ex: PW7/A that he was not in possession of the suit property. Therefore, the plea of objector Rajinder Singh that he was owner in possession of the property stood belied from the material on record. The objector and his legal representatives, had no right in the suit property and consequently, the impugned order cannot be faulted with. During the course of submissions before this Court an impression was sought to be created that some construction was raised by the objectors, which is also falsified from the record as the widow of Rajinder Singh, Gurdeep Kaur clearly stated that 8 to 10 rooms existed on the suit property which was constructed by Gurbachan Singh her father-in-law. This Court also granted some time to the parties to enable them to settle the matter. However, the respondent expressed his inability to arrive at a compromise. Civil Revision No. 5188 of 2009 -4- After hearing the parties and for the reasons which have been stated above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and consequently, the revision petition being totally without merit, is dismissed. [MAHESH GROVER] JUDGE 31st March, 2010 Shivani Kaushik