IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 1187-CII of 2011 in/and Civil Revision No. 7935 of 2010 Date of decision: January 24, 2011 Sanjay .. Petitioner Vs. Dharampal and others .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. N.D. Achint, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J This revision petition assails the order dated 25.9.2009 (Annexure P4) and the order dated 12.10.2010 on the ground that no valid decree could be passed against the petitioners as he was minor at that time. In this regard, he has also filed an application for setting aside the decree being executed, therefore, he has prayed that the decree could not be executed against him. Having perused the records of the case, the suit filed by Dharampal etc. against Malkhan Singh who had died during the pendency of the suit and he was represented by his legal heirs Ranbir Singh, Sudesh Kumar, Pawan Kumar who are the sons and Sanjay petitioner who is the grandson of Malkhan Singh. At the time of trial, none of the defendants raised any objection that Sanjay was minor and he was not being represented through a guardian. He was duly represented by his counsel. Any way, Sanjay is not to be proved minor at all. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to take shelter of one photocopy of the middle class examination certificate issued by the Board of School Education Haryana which reveals that one Sandeep son of Vikram Singh was born on 10.1.1991. This school certificate does not indicate if it relates to Sanjay. Even the petitioner as well as the other defendants who had represented the estate of Malkhan Singh never disclosed that Sanjay is also known as Sandeep. It is not established that Vikram Singh was the son of Malkhan Singh, therefore, it would be difficult to observe that this certificate Civil Revision No. 7935 of 2010 -2- *** Annexure P-11 bearing the name of Sandeep relates to Sanjay- petitioner. It has also been observed by the trial court that the petitioner had moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the decree, but the said application has also been dismissed vide order dated 25.9.2009. In these circumstances, the instant petition appears to have been filed by the petitioner in order to frustrate and delay the execution proceedings. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. January 24, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge