IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3378 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision 28.10.2009 Varinder Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS The Victory Public Hill Motor Transport Company PrivateLimited, Una Road, Hoshiarpur and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr.Harmanjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.O.P.Hoshiarpuri, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This petition is directed against the order dated 15.05.2009, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur, vide which the objection petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. In nutshell the facts are that respondents No.2 and 3 Mul Raj and Om Parkash respectively had obtained a decree for possession against respondent No.1-Victory Public Hill Motor Transport Company Private Limited, Una Road, Hoshiarpur (herein referred as 'respondent No.1') on 21.05.1982 from the Court of Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, in rent case No.102/27.5.1980 titled as Mool Raj versus Victory Public Hill Company Private Limited which was lateron confirmed by the Court of Sh.Surjit Singh, Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Hoshiarpur, in the appeal prepared on 28.02.2003 while exercising the powers of appellate authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The Civil Revision No.3378 of 2009(O&M) -2- Court vide order dated 22.04.2003 confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority. The Supreme Court also did not relish to interfere in the order of ejectment. Review application filed by respondent No.1 was also dismissed. Petitioner Varinder Singh son of Labh Singh, has filed the objection petition merely on the basis of possession over the property which has been dismissed. The objection petition appears to be superfluous and vexatious as actually the decree is being executed against respondent No.1. It is settled by now that the petition if found vexatious, superfluous and just to delay the execution, should be dismissed summarily. The framing of issues in such objection petitions has been discouraged so that the decree holders may not be trapped by the unscrupulous elements who make misuse of the process for thwarting the enforcement of those decrees which have attained finality. The Executing Court has elaborately discussed the question while assigning the reasons and dismissing the objection petition. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 28.10.2009 mamta-II