Civil Revision No.804 of 2010(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.804 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:13.05.2010 Udasi Dharamshala Jandoli through its Mohant Ranbir Dass .... petitioner Versus Bagicha Singh .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Harinder Kumar Aurora, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.G.S.Jaswal, Advocate for the respondent **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): Petitioner-decree holder has filed this petition challenging the impugned order dated 08.12.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur accepting Misc.Civil Appeal No.16 of 27.04.2009 filed on behalf of the respondent-judgment debtor, setting aside the order dated 04.04.2009 of the Executing Court whereby his objections were dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that order dated 04.04.2009 rejecting the objections filed by the respondent-judgment debtor was revisable only and no appeal was maintainable against the aforesaid order, whereas the court of Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur had entertained the appeal against the aforesaid order illegally and further has passed an interim order in favour of the judgement-debtor/respondent staying his dispossession without Civil Revision No.804 of 2010(O & M) 2 jurisdiction. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that once the appeal itself was not maintainable before Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, he could not have granted any interim order and therefore the impugned order was liable to be set aside. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- judgment debtor could not dispute the proposition that the order dated 04.04.2009 passed by the Executing Court was revisable and appeal filed before the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur against the aforesaid order was not maintainable. However, argument raised by learned counsel for the respondent is that since the appeal is pending, let the question of maintainability of the aforesaid appeal etc.or validity of the passing of the impugned order be disposed of by the aforesaid Authority only and till then the interim order should ordered to be continue. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. There is no dispute with the proposition that the appeal itself is not maintainable. There is no merit in the contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. Once the appeal before the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur is not maintainable against the order dated 04.04.2009 passed by the Executing Court, there is no justification of continuation of the same and further ordering that all the objections of the petitioner be decided in that appeal as no order could have been passed by that court for want of jurisdiction. Faced with this situation, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent stated that respondent-judgment debtor be given opportunity to challenge the order dated 04.04.2009 passed by the Executing Court of Ms.Preeti Sahni, Civil Judge(Senior Division), Hoshiarpur, in accordance with law. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the decree- holder/petitioner has no objection to the aforesaid prayer of the respondent. Civil Revision No.804 of 2010(O & M) 3 In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of with the observations that appeal filed by the respondent-judgment debtor before the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur against the order dated 04.04.2009 is not maintainable. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 08.12.2009 is ordered to be set aside. However, respondent-judgment debtor is at liberty to challenge the order dated 04.04.2009 by filing a revision petition in accordance with the law. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 13.05.2010 neenu