C. R. No. 4033 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 4033 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 01, 2010 Balraj .... Petitioner Vs. Nathu Ram and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Avtar Singh Khinda, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Balraj has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 15.03.2010 (Annexure P- 2), passed by the Executing Court i.e. learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, thereby dismissing objections filed by the petitioner in execution petition instituted by respondent no.1 Nathu Ram – decree-holder against respondents no.2 and 3 – judgment-debtors. Vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.1998, suit filed by respondent no.1 against respondents no.2 and 3 for possession of the suit property was decreed. The said decree was upheld in first appeal vide judgment and decree dated 06.05.2003. Thereafter, respondent no.1 – C. R. No. 4033 of 2010 2 decree-holder filed execution petition on 16.07.2004. However, unfortunately, as is bane of our legal system, decree-holder has not been able to obtain possession of the suit property for almost six years since the filing of the execution petition. More than 11 years have passed since the passing of decree by the trial court. Various objections are being raised to stall the execution. In the same series, the petitioner also filed objections claiming to be in possession of the suit property. It was alleged that the suit property belongs to Cantonment Board and therefore, decree-holder respondent no.1 has no right to seek possession of the suit property in execution of the decree. Objections preferred by the petitioner have been dismissed by the Executing Court by passing impugned order (Annexure P-2), which is under challenge in the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended the suit property belongs to Cantonment Board and therefore, decree-holder cannot seek possession of the suit property in execution of the decree. The contention is completely misconceived and without substance. No such objection can be raised in execution petition. Any such objection could be raised in the suit itself and not in the execution petition. The petitioner claims through judgment-debtors and therefore, the petitioner cannot raise any such objection. The petitioner is son of respondent no.3, who herself is C. R. No. 4033 of 2010 3 daughter of respondent no.2. Thus, petitioner is son and grandson of the judgment-debtors and claims through them. The petitioner has no independent right to remain in possession of the suit property. The Executing Court has recorded detailed reasons for dismissing the objection petition. The impugned order is fully justified and does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The judgment-debtors failed in their attempt up to this Court and thereafter, they have been stalling the execution of the decree, which has been affirmed up to this Court. It would be better if the petitioner and judgment-debtors gracefully comply with the decree. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is completely frivolous and meritless. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine. July 01, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE