Civil Revision No. 4215 of 2004 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4215 of 2004 Date of Decision: August 27, 2009 Paramjit Singh ......... Petitioner versus M/s Gobind Ram Anil Kumar and others .......... Respondents Present:- Shri Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 22nd July, 2004 passed by the learned Executing Court whereby objections raised by defendant No.6 were dismissed. It is the case of the objector-defendant No.6, present petitioner, that earlier objections were dismissed but now he has become major, therefore, he wants to contest the petition himself. The objection was that no application was filed by the plaintiff for appointment of Guardian under Order 32 Rule 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, therefore, the decree granted against defendant No.6, who was minor at the time of filing of suit, is illegal, null and void. The learned trial court dismissed the said objection and aggrieved against the said order, defendant No.6 is in revision. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that in the suit which led to decree dated 12.11.2001 in execution of which the Civil Revision No. 4215 of 2004 [2] petitioner has filed objections, the argument raised on behalf of the defendant was that defendant No.6 is not a minor. It was found on the basis of matriculation certificate produced during the course of trial Exhibit D-1 that defendant No.6 was not a minor. Particular reference was made to Para 31 and 33 of the judgment in the civil suit and relevant discussion of such argument reads as under:- “31. Learned counsel for the defendants further urged that defendant No. 6 Paramjit Singh was not the minor at the time of filing the suit, as it is clear from Exhibit D1 and plaintiff did not amend the plaint to remove this lacuna and the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable due to the above said reason. Therefore, suit of the plaintiff may be dismissed. 33. ........ Here the plea of the defendants, that plaintiff firm has not amended the plaint, as the defendant No.6 was not minor at the time of filing the suit, has no force in the eyes of law, as it have no any effect on the present case, if, the defendant No. 6 is major and it is admitted by defendants and even established by the document Exhibit D-1 by producing of certificate of matric of defendant No.6 where from, it is clear that the defendant No.6 was the major at the time of filing the suit. Therefore, there is no any such need to amend the plaint and it have no any effect on the case”. It is, thus, contended that once the question regarding minority of the petitioner has been examined in the civil suit, the petitioner cannot raise such objection in the execution proceedings. It is argued that the Executing Court cannot travel beyond the decree passed, whereas such objections have been raised by the petitioner which is against the decree in which he was a party. It is also pointed out that earlier the petitioner has filed objections which were dismissed and Civil Revision No. 2571 of 2003 was dismissed by this Court as well. Therefore, the present objection is Civil Revision No. 4215 of 2004 [3] another attempt to delay and defeat the execution of the decree. In view of the finding recorded in the judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner could not raise any meaningful argument in the present petition. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. August 27, 2009 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ks JUDGE