IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3991 of 2003 Date of decision: 12th March, 2010 Jasbir Singh and another … Petitioners Versus Sewa Singh and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Arun Singla, Advocate for Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Despite there being a decree in favour of the petitioners passed in a suit filed for permanent injunction, the Judgment Debtors were not honouring the same. So, the petitioners filed an application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC against the Judgment Debtors on the ground that they were interfering in the possession of the petitioners – Decree Holders over the shop in dispute by damaging the locks and washing away their sign-boards. The said application was however, dismissed vide order dated 1st August, 2003 on the ground that petitioners – Decree Holders had failed to lead any evidence in order to prove this issue. Counsel for the petitioners has filed an affidavit of Vidya Bhushan, Clerk of Sh. Bhagwant Kishore, Advocate, District Courts, Hoshiarpur to say that on that day, i.e. 01.08.2003, the counsel was busy Civil Revision No. 3991 of 2003 in another Court and an affidavit of one of the Decree Holders, namely Jasbir Singh, was prepared and was ready to be filed in the Court, but he could not do so due to non-availability of the counsel. Learned counsel is, however, unable to answer the observation of this Court as to why another application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC could not be filed? Be that as it may, the petitioners are granted an opportunity to file a fresh application in the trial Court, which shall consider the same on the ground that on that day, the counsel was not available. With the observations made above, present petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE March 12, 2010 rps 2