CIVIL REVISION NO.3051 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 26, 2008 Kishori Lal & another .....Petitioners VERSUS Madan Gopal Dutt and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. P. N. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The revision is directed against the order passed by Executing Court dismissing the objections filed by the petitioners. The only grievance is that the Executing Court has committed an illegality in relying upon the report of Local Commissioner for identifying the property. It is alleged that the Local Commissioner has only considered the boundaries as are alleged in the heading of the civil suit, whereas this property was purchased in the year 1949 where the boundaries were mentioned which should have been taken into consideration by the Local Commissioner at the time of giving CIVIL REVISION NO.3051 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: report. It is otherwise conceded that the suit was decreed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Phillaur on 11.8.1997 and the appeal filed against the same was decided by Addl.District Judge, Jalandhar on 4.6.1999 up-holding the decree. Regular Second Appeal filed before this court was also disposed of by observing that the courts below have held that no doubt is cast on the identity of the suit property which is a house. It was also observed by this court, while affirming the decree of the courts below, that if the appellants (petitioners) have any shop on the north of the house, then this decree will not affect their rights qua the said shop. The impugned order is required to be appreciated in the background of this factual findings standing against the petitioners. Still, the Executing Court appears to have detailed a Local Commissioner, who visited the spot. The case of the petitioners is that the Local Commissioner failed to identify the property and so the execution application can only be given effect once the property is identified. This prayer was opposed by the counsel for the decree- holder by referring the order passed by this court. The counsel for the decree-holder submits that the shop of the petitioners is not to be effected. He would also point that the Local Commissioner has visited the spot and has inspected the same in the presence of the parties and has, thus, given his report showing that the property of Hakam Singh is not situated towards the north and rather property of Ram Gopal Dutt is located which is mentioned in the description given in the head note of the suit. CIVIL REVISION NO.3051 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: The court after considering the rival contentions found that he cannot go behind the decree and the execution is to be done of the property, which was described in the plaint and which is also found mentioned in the judgments passed by the courts. It has further been rightly observed by the executing court that all these issues were required to be raised in the suit and the appeal and cannot now be agitated in the execution proceedings. The objections filed by the petitioners have, thus, been dismissed by observing that the High Court order would leave no doubt that it is only the case towards the north of the property in question where the property of Hakam Singh is situated and thus the right of the objector-JD is not to be effected. I do not find any irregularity or legal infirmity in the order, which would call for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. May 26,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE