IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1054 of 2008 Date of decision: February 20, 2008. Mahabir ...Petitioner(s) v. Ram Chander & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. Present: Shri Babbar Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 6.10.2007 passed by the learned Executing Court – cum - Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ganaur whereby the objections filed by the petitioner – judgment debtor have been turned down and attachment orders in respect of the property of both the judgment debtors has been issued. Respondent No.1 - plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against proforma respondent No.2 (Tara Chand) which was decreed on 5.11.1999. Tara Chand's appeal against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 – plaintiff had to file yet another suit against the present petitioner (Mahabir) and that too was decreed on 6.8.2003. The petitioner's appeal against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed on 29.2.2004. Alleging, inter-alia, that even when both the decrees have attained finality, the petitioner and respondent No.2, i.e., the judgment debtors were interfering in his peaceful possession over the subject plot, the respondent-decree holder moved an application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC seeking attachment of the properties of the judgment debtors. The petitioner raised objections and disputed the demarcation and location of the subject plot. According to him, the decree pertained to a plot which was within the abadi deh, however, the respondent No.1, under the garb of execution thereof, now wants to take possession of a plot which falls outside abadi deh. The learned Executing Court has turned down these objections after observing that this very plea had been taken by the petitioner before the civil court and the same was turned down. The learned Executing Court has further categorically observed that both the judgment debtors are not adhering to the decrees passed against them and are still interfering in the peaceful possession of the respondent No.1 – decree holder. In these circumstances, the action taken by the learned Executing Court regarding attachment of the properties of the judgment debtors warrants no interference by this Court. Dismissed. February 20, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge