Civil Revision No. 2512 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2512 of 2011 Date of Decision: 19.4.2011 *** Ajit Singh .. Petitioner Vs. The Mianwali Gurgaon Coop. Housing Building Society Ltd. Gurgaon .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Order dated 21.3.2011 is under challenge in the instant revision petition. By dint of the impugned order the objections filed by the petitioner-JD under Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC in respect of the decree, which was passed in a suit for possession filed by respondent No.1- DH way back in the year 1978. The decree was upheld upto this Court vide judgment dated 7.7.2004. The petitioner-JD who was bound to deliver the possession of the suit property did not do so and hence execution petition for satisfaction of the decree was filed wherein the petitioner filed objection, inter alia, on the ground that portion in respect of which the decree was passed, due to raising of construction interregnum, has become inseparable and is of no use, hence the decree-holder be asked to sell the same in his favour. The JD also offered to pay the compensation as assessed by the Court or by the decree holder in respect of that part of the property. However, the claim of the Objector was resisted by the decree-holder. The learned Executing Court below while dismissing the objections held as under:- Civil Revision No. 2512 of 2011 2 “7. Undisputedly, the DH have decree for possession with regard to the suit property in their favour and this is also not disputed that the JD/objectors have raised construction over the property. The JD/Objector cannot insist that the disputed portion being under construction has become inseparable part of his property and it should be sold to him. The JD by these objections want to perpetuate his wrongs which cannot be allowed legally. Moreover, in the facts and circumstances of the case, unauthorized possession of the property for a quite long time is no ground to legalize his illegal possession. So, the objections are frivolous and are accordingly, dismissed with costs of Rs.500/- which shall be deposited by the JD/ Objector in the account of District Legal Services Authority, Gurgaon.” The aforesaid observations of the learned Executing Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot said to be suffered from any illegality or perversity. The instant revision, being devoid of any merit, is thus dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE April 19 , 2011 Jiten