IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.3091 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 27.05.2008 Darshan Kumar ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Arun Abrol, Advocate vs. Prem Parkash Mehta ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved at the order dated 8.4.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Executing Court, Gurdaspur, whereby the execution petition filed by the respondent-decree- holder has been ordered to be consigned being fully satisfied, yet the decree-holder has been given an opportunity to file a fresh application to avoid wastage of time in service of the parties, if so required. The petitioner-judgment debtor impugns the later part of the order to the extent it permits the decree-holder to move a fresh application if so required even when the decree has been fully satisfied. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and having regard to the nature of the decree, I am of the considered view that no interference in the impugned order is called for. The petitioner was earlier held to have obstructed the passage in a public street and with the C.R. No.3091 of 2008 (O&M) -2- intervention of the Court, the unauthorized construction raised by him appears to have been demolished/removed. In these circumstances to ensure that the respondent-decree- holder is able to enjoy the passage smoothly, the learned Executing Court has rightly kept it open that he can move an application if so required. No case for interference by this Court in the impugned order, therefore, is called for. Dismissed. May 27, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE