Civil Revision No. 3837 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3837 of 2011 Date of Decision: 03.06.2011 *** Nurudin .. Petitioner Vs. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. S.K. Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The following order passed by the Executing Court below, has necessitated the petitioner-judgment debtor to file the instant petition:- “Notice issued to the JD received back duly served and Sh. Ajay Aggarwal, counsel, filed memo of appearance on behalf of the JD. Heard. Warrants of possession of the decreetal property be issued for 4.6.2011 on filing of PF etc.” Heard. From the perusal of the aforesaid order, it is clear that on the first date of hearing, without providing an opportunity to file objections, the learned Executing Court below straightway ordered for issuance of warrants of possession of the decreetal property. This recourse can be resorted to after granting the petitioner JD to file the objections and decision thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that the service upon some of the judgment debtors is still to be effected and the execution petition has been filed in exaggeration to what has been awarded vide the decree under execution. In view of the matter, in the considered opinion of the Court, Civil Revision No. 3837 of 2011 2 the learned Executing Court has to first decide the objections of the petitioner and then to proceed with the case in accordance with law. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Executing Court below to pass orders afresh, after providing an opportunity of filing the objections to the petitioner. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, they will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondents that if they feel dissatisfied with this order, they may move an application to recall the same. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE June 03, 2011 Jiten