Civil Revision No. 6891 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 6891 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.11.2009 Sarabjit Singh ......petitioner Versus Ramandeep Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate. for the petitioner. Mr.Sharwan Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.N.S.Rapri, Advocate, for the caveator-respondents. **** SABINA, J. Ramandeep Singh and Harmandeep Singh-decree holders filed an execution petition basing their claim on the eviction order passed in execution petition. Petitioner Sarabjit Singh filed objections in the execution petition. Vide order dated 23.4.2009, the Executing Court dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner. The said order was upheld by the Additional District Judge vide order dated 24.9.2009. Hence, the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Civil Revision No. 6891 of 2009 (O&M) 2 After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned senior counsel for the caveator, I am of the opinion that there is no ground for interference by this Court. Admittedly, portion of shop No.203 measuring 10 ft. x 31 ft. is owned and possessed by the petitioner. Shop No.204 had been rented out to Prem Kaur by the decree-holders. The decree- holders filed an ejectment petition against tenant Prem Kaur and the same was allowed. The said order of eviction was upheld up to the Apex Court. The petitioner appeared as a witness of tenant Prem Kaur in the ejectment petition. The Courts below have observed that in the said petition, the petitioner had not taken the plea that three feet area of shop No.203 had been merged in shop No.204. The partition agreement had also taken place between Sarabjit Singh and Kultar Singh (predecessor-in-interest of the decree-holders) on 23.10.1989 Ex.R-9. In the said partition agreement also it was not stated that three feet portion of shop No.203 had been merged in shop No.204. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE November 30, 2009 anita