CIVIL REVISION NO.528 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 13, 2008 Dwarki Devi and others .....Petitioners VERSUS Anita Kapila ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The objection petition filed by the petitioners before the executing Court alongwith application for staying the executing proceedings stand dismissed, which are under challenge through the present revision petition. Faquir Singh, predecessor-in-interest of judgment debtor, claimed himself to be owner in possession of House No.501, Old Bishan Nagar, Patiala. Judgment Debtor claims that decree holder CIVIL REVISION NO.528 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: has no right, title or interest in House No.501. Plea is that the judgment debtor never took this house on rent. One Ram Sarup earlier tried to dis-possess the judgment debtor, when he filed a suit for permanent injunction. This suit was decreed on 6.2.1998. The stand taken by the judgment debtor was that he never took House No.505 on rent and was in possession of House No.501. It is urged that the Rent Controller, Patiala, vide his order dated 24.3.2003, has decided the rent petition summarily directing his eviction. The appeal against this order has been rejected on 9.6.2004. Even revision petition filed before this Court was dismissed on 20.3.2006 and so also the Special Leave Petition preferred by judgment debtor Faquir Singh, which was dismissed on 18.5.2007. Claiming that since question of House No.501 owned and possessed by judgment debtor was never decided, he filed a civil suit for declaration, which is pending before Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala. It is in this background that judgment debtor pleads that decree holder has no right to take possession of this house. He filed an application for staying the execution proceedings during the pendency of deciding his objection petition. It is, thus, seen that the ejectment application has been decided upto Hon'ble Supreme Court, up-holding the order of eviction of the judgment debtor. He has now tried to create a confusion by mixing the identity of the demised premises. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners based his entire argument on this fact that judgment debtor was occupying House No.501 and never took CIVIL REVISION NO.528 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: on rent House No.505. He has attempted to convey that he is in possession of House No.501. Precisely, this issue was also raised by him while defending rent petition filed for his ejectment. The Appellate Authority, Patiala, while rejecting his appeal through order dated 9.6.2004, has found it as a matter of fact that judgment debtor, Faquir Singh, while executing the rent note, himself admitted to be resident of House No.505 as a tenant under Ram Sarup Kapila. It is in this background observed by the Court that he is now estopped from claiming that he is not tenant under Ram Sarup Kapila or his successor-in-interest. All these points have already been decided by the courts while dealing with the rent petition and the judgment debtor is now seeking to reopen the same in executing proceedings. Finding this to be a crude and blatant attempt on the part of the judgment debtor to frustrate the ejectment order, his objections have been rejected. The Executing Court has rightly observed that the judgment debtor had given an undertaking before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that he would not induct any person in the suit premiss and shall pay the arrears of rent to the landlord within one month. He, later on, however, failed to furnish an undertaking, as sought, leading to modification of the order, directing the Court to execute the ejectment order on or before 30.11.2007. It is seen that the judgment debtor is only attempting to confuse the issues by taking different pleas at different stages before different courts. The aim is only to see that the order of his ejectment is not executed. CIVIL REVISION NO.528 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: Such attempt on his part needs to be curbed. No indulgence can be shown to the person who has attempts to mislead the Court. The present revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. February 13 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE