C.R. No.4027 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4027 of 2008 Date of Decision: 08.01.2010 Dinesh Chand .……Petitioner Versus Har Chandi and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. S. K. Sood, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anish Setia, Advocate for the respondent No.1. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Dinesh Chand-Objector has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 05.04.2008 passed by the Executing Court i.e learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palwal vide which objections filed by the petitioner in the execution petition have been dismissed and the said order has been affirmed in appeal by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment dated 07.06.2008 which is also under challenge in the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Suit filed by respondent No.1- Har Chandi against Sher Singh respondent No.2 and his wife Ramwati (both since deceased) (Ramwati not party to the instant revision petition) for possession of suit property by specific performance of agreement to sell dated 09.09.1994 was decreed. Respondent No.1-decree-holder filed execution petition wherein the petitioner Dinesh Chand filed objection alleging that Sher Singh-judgment debtor No.1 had agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the petitioner- objector for Rs.2,25,000/- vide agreement dated 31.01.1994 and entire sale C.R. No.4027 of 2008 -2- consideration was paid by the objector, who is in possession of the suit property since then and the decree has been obtained by respondent No.1 in collusion with Judgment Debtor No.1 i.e respondent No.2. Objections were resisted by the decree-holder. Learned Executing Court vide impugned order dated 05.04.2008 dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner. Appeal against the said order preferred by the petitioner had been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment dated 07.06.2008. Admittedly the petitioner did not file suit for specific performance of the alleged agreement to sell dated 31.01.1994 till the year 2007, when he filed the suit after warrant of possession was issued in the execution petition filed by respondent No.1. Said suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner is still pending. In view thereof, it would be appropriate if the rights of the parties are determined in the said suit. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is dismissed with clarification that any observations or finding in the impugned order dated 05.04.2008 of the Executing Court and judgment dated 07.06.2008 of the Appellate Court shall have no bearing on the merits of the suit for specific performance of the agreement filed by the petitioner herein. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 08.01.2010. A. Kaundal