Civil Revision No.6036 of 2010(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.6036 of 2010(O&M) Decided on : January 18, 2011 Smt.Naraini and others ... Petitioners VERSUS Jai Narain and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Kartar Singh Malik-1 Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for respondents No.1,3 5 and 6. Mr.Rajiv Malhotra, Additional Advocate General Haryana for respondent No.7. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Vide order dated 22.7.2010 while considering the reply of the judgment-debtors (respondents before this Court), the Executing Court disposed of the execution petition with a direction to the decree-holders (petitioners before this Court) to get entered the mutation of the property, which came to their share as per compromise decree dated 7.9.1984 passed in Civil Suit No.517 of 1981. Respondent No.7 – Naib Tehsildar was directed to make an entry in the mutation as per the terms of the decree. Now, aggrieved by the said order, the judgment-debtors have preferred this Civil Revision No.6036 of 2010(O&M) [ 2 ] revision. Heard. There is no denying a fact that a decree was passed on 7.9.1984 on the basis of a compromise, whereby, Jai Narain, Balram, Daya Kishan, Jai Dayal and Ram Singh were declared as owners to the extent of 1/5th share, each, being the sons of Sukh Chand. This judgment was upheld upto the Supreme Court. Now, Jai Narain, Daya Kishan and heirs of Balram – decree- holders have sought execution of the said decree. The objections raised by the judgment-debtors appear to be superfluous and futile as the Court has ordered warrant by directing to enter the mutation of the property, which came to the share of the decree holders in terms of the decree dated 7.9.1984 passed by the Court. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. January 18, 2011 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE