C.R. No.3313 of 2004 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3313 of 2004(O&M) Date of Decision: October 05, 2009 Sadhu Ram ...........Petitioner Versus Sanwar Mal ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.C.B.Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Mani Ram Verma,Advocate for respondent No.2 -- Sabina, J. (oral) Decree holder-Sanwar Mal, respondent filed an execution petition regarding decree dated 17.8.1988 for possession by way of pre- emption in respect of one kanal four marlas of land. Ex parte decree was passed in favour of the decree holder. Petitioner-judgment debtor filed an objection petition in the said execution petition. Vide impugned order dated 12.1.1999, the executing Court dismissed the objection petition. In appeal, the said order was upheld by the District Judge, Bhiwani vide impugned order dated 16.4.2004. Hence, the present revision petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant revision petition is devoid of any merit. The suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed ex-parte vide judgment and decree dated 17.8.1988. Respondent filed an execution petition on 1.10.1988 and the same was got dismissed as withdrawn on C.R. No.3313 of 2004 (O&M) 2 31.7.1989. The judgment debtor had filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 24.4.1992 and thereafter, the present execution petition was filed by the decree holder on 28.8.1993, that is, within the period of limitation. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that the execution petition filed by the decree holder was maintainable as the same had been filed within the period of limitation and the earlier execution petition had not been decided on merits. Moreover, the petitioner had also sought setting aside of the ex-parte decree and after dismissal of the application moved by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte decree, the present execution petition was filed. The impugned order does not suffer from any material illegality or irregularity which may warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed ( Sabina ) Judge October 05, 2009 arya