CR No.3024 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNAJB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3024 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on 13.5.2011 Smt.Urmila Devi -- Petitioner vs. Smt.Kuldip Kaur --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Ashok Jindal,Advocate,for the petitioner RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J, (Oral) CM Nos.12669 &12670-CII of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. C.R.No.3024 of 2011 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.2.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, by which objections filed by the tenant have been dismissed. In brief, the landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949 (for short,'the Act') for ejectment of the tenant from property bearing Kothi No. 72-D, situated at Gali No.4, Model Town, Amritsar, inter alia, on the ground of bonafide necessity. The eviction petition of the landlord was allowed CR No.3024 of 2011 (O&M) 2 by the Rent Controller and the tenant remained unsuccessful up to the High Court in revision petition. The order of eviction has become final between the parties. Thereafter, the landlord filed an execution application in which the objections have been filed by the tenant under Order 21 Rule 11 and 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short, CPC), in which it is, inter alia, alleged that the document attached with the execution application were signed by the son of the landlady, therefore, execution application is not maintainable. In order to prove this fact, the tenant had also got the signatures of the landlady compared on which his expert had opined in his favour but the Executing Court dismissed the objections on the ground that the landlady had owned the signatures obtained on the document and report of the handwriting expert is only a corroborative piece of evidence and is not conclusive proof, therefore, admission of the landlady could not be disbelieved. I do not find any error in the approach of the learned Executing Court while dismissing the objections The tenant had also filed an application for the purpose of framing the issues which has been dismissed on the ground that the tenant is delaying the proceedings of execution. It is now well settled that it is not necessary that in all cases, issues have to be framed. If the Court finds that the objections can be decided without even framing issues, the same can be decided as such. In the present case, the only argument that has been raised is with regard to the signatures of the landlady on the CR No.3024 of 2011 (O&M) 3 documents attached with the execution application which has been owned by her therefore, the objections raised by the judgment debtor do not survive. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and hence the same is hereby dismissed in limine. 13.5.2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) RR JUDGE