C.R. No.814 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... C.R. No.814 of 2011 Date of Decision: February 04, 2011 Lal Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS Sukhraj Singh ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Mr.G.S.Nagra, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This is a revision against the impugned order dated 12.01.2011 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.)/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar. The decree holder sought execution of decree dated 20.09.2006 passed in Civil Suit No.273/2004 dated 24.08.2004. The petitioner was proceeded exparte in the Civil Suit filed by the respondent and, as such, the exparte decree for specific performance dated 20.09.2006 was passed. The suit land is about 10 marla of house owned by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that on 14.10.2010, he came to know about exparte decree when the decree holder along with Bailiff came to take possession of the property. The petitioner requested the decree holder for settlement of the dispute and the decree holder agreed for the same and brought the petitioner C.R. No.814 of 2011 2 to the Court. It is further mentioned that the counsel for the decree holder wanted to give wrong statement and, as such, the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the exparte judgment and decree, which is pending in the Court and is now fixed for 09.02.2011. While arguing before me, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the exparte decree was never brought to his knowledge nor he was aware of the suit having been filed by the respondent. It has been submitted that the exparte decree obtained by the decree holder is by way of fraud and to set aside the same, the petitioner has moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., which is still pending. It is also submitted that this was only residential house of the judgment debtor and, as such, the decree in question cannot be executed. I have gone through the impugned order passed by the Court below, which is well explained. No doubt, the exparte decree has been passed on 20.09.2006. However, it has been recorded by the trial Court that warrant of possession was issued on 13.05.2008. However, Bailiff returned the warrants with a report that the judgment debtor is creating nuisance and there was apprehension of danger to his life at the time of execution of warrant of possession and he wanted police protection. Once the report of the Bailiff is there on the file, it cannot be said that the judgment debtor was not aware of the exparte decree. Though an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the exparte decree is pending but the same has been moved on 26.10.10 at a belated stage. The second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this is only the residential house of C.R. No.814 of 2011 3 the judgment debtor, is also devoid of any force, in view of existence of agreement to sell culminating the decree for specific performance. As the decree holder has purchased the house and decree still remain on record, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. Dismissed. February 04, 2011 ( MOHINDER PAL ) jt JUDGE