Civil Revision No. 6966 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 6966 of 2009 Date of decision: 27.11. 2009 Karamveer and others ......petitioners Versus Om Pati .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Alok Jain, Advocate. for the petitioners. **** SABINA, J. Om Pati had filed a suit for pre-emption and the same was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 12.11.2004. On the basis of the same, decree-holder deposited the sale consideration before the trial Court. However, in appeal, the decision of the trial Court was reversed vide judgment and decree dated 26.10.1995. Regular Second Appeal No.498 of of 1996 filed by the decree-holder was dismissed by this Court on 20.3.1996. Civil Appeal No.11868 of 1996 was dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 31.7.2001. However, the same was allowed vide order dated 27.4.2004 in I.A. No.2 in Civil Appeal No.11868 of 1996. Vide the impugned order dated 29.10.2009, the objections filed by the judgment debtors were dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed Civil Revision No. 6966 of 2009 2 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the judgment debtors. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that there is no ground for interference by this Court. In the present case, the decree-holder had deposited the sale consideration after the suit filed by her was decreed. However, the said amount was later withdrawn after her appeal was dismissed by this Court. Thereafter, the amount of sale consideration was again re-deposited by the decree-holder after the Apex Court upheld the judgment of the trial Court. The amount was deposited by the decree-holder at her own risk and responsibility. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, learned trial Court had rightly dismissed the objections filed by the judgment debtors as the amount of sale consideration deposited by the decree-holder had been withdrawn after she lost her appeal in this Court. Initially she also lost her appeal in the Apex Court but later on the same was allowed by the Apex Court. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE November 27, 2009 anita