C.R. No.4058 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4058 of 2009 Date of decision 18 .5.2010. Lekh Raj ...... Petitioner. versus Ghansham Lal ...... Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI. Present : Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Behl, Advocate for respondents. K.C.PURI. J. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 6.11.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Nawanshahr on the allegations that the decree-holder-respondent has no right to file the execution application on the basis of an order dated 22.11.2000, which had been passed due to non payment of rent. It has been alleged by the petitioner that he had already paid the rent to the brother of the decree-holder, who is a co-sharer in C.R. No.4058 of 2009 2 the property in dispute. As such no rent is due from him. Therefore, the respondent-decree-holder has got no right to execute the order dated 22.11.2000 and to seek possession of the disputed premises. As per the judgment debtor, he is still a tenant in the premises under the owners thereof but the execution application has been filed merely with a view to harass him. The respondent-decree-holder, on notice appeared and denied all the circumstances alleged by the petitioner and took up preliminary objections to the maintainability thereof and that the objector has suppressed the material facts from the Court. On merits, it has been submitted that the warrant of possession had already been ordered to be issued by the Court. The judgment debtor was not supposed to make any payment to any other person as the decree-holder is the landlord qua the petitioner- judgment debtor. The payment if any to Charandeep Jain, is no payment in the eyes of law. The respondent prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. The learned Trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the application of the petitioner. Feeling dis-satisfied with the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition before this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. C.R. No.4058 of 2009 3 The main objection filed by the petitioner-judgment-debtor is that rent has been paid to Charandeep Jain, brother of the decree- holder, who is a cosharer. So, the execution petition for possession of suit property is not maintainable. The learned Executing Court in para No.4 of the impugned order has given the details of sequence. Objector has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order of ejectment, which was dismissed by the Appellate Court on 11.1.2008. It has been observed by the Executing Court that objector was aware of the passing of the ex-parte order of ejectment. The service was effected on 27.5.2002 and thereafter he appeared on 12.6.2002. On 24.10.2002, the petitioner-objector did not pay the costs of Rs.500/- assessed by the Rent Controller and thereafter absented from the Court. The warrant of possession was issued on 12.6.2004. The ex-parte proceedings were set aside on 11.12.2004 and thereafter he again absented on 15.12.2007. The learned trial Court has rightly held that the objections are frivolous and have been made to delay the proceedings of the Court. Once the eviction order has become final against the judgment debtor, the trial Court was well within its right to execute the ejectment order by dismissing the objection. So, I see no merit in the petition and the same stands dismissed. C.R. No.4058 of 2009 4 A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE May 18th , 2010 sv