IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6072 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 30.11.2009 Santo wd/o Deep Chand .....Petitioner versus Raghuraj and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Ashok K.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 29.8.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palwal, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 to 101 CPC, have been dismissed after observing that the same have been filed only to delay the execution of the decree. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, it is reported by the Registry that respondent Nos.1 to 6 have been duly served. However, no one appears on their behalf. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are the contesting respondents but they too are unrepresented. C.R. No.6072 of 2009 (O&M) 2 The petitioner is the widow of Deep Chand who passed away on 16.7.,1997. In support of her plea, the petitioner has placed on record a copy of death certificate of her husband dated 18.7.1998 as Annexure P-5. It necessarily means that at the time of institution of the suit in the year 1995, the husband of the petitioner, namely, Deep Chand was very much alive. The impugned order itself suggests that Deep Chand was not impleaded as a party-defendant in the suit. The petitioner in her objections has categorically pleaded that she is in possession of 2/3rd share being legal representative of her deceased-husband, Deep Chand. In these circumstances, when the decree is sought to be executed against her, the objections filed by the petitioner ought not to be dismissed by the Executive Court on a hyper technical plea that the same must have been filed to delay the execution proceedings. It is imperative upon the Executing Court to consider and decide the objections raised in the petition, on merits. For the reasons aforestated, this revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 29.8.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palwal, is set-aside and the Executing Court is directed to reconsider and decide the petitioner's objections on merits and in accordance with law. Till then, status-quo shall be maintained. Dasti. 30-11-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE