IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.6736 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.10.2010 Kailash Chand. ....... Petitioner. Versus Smt.Chandro Devi and others. ....... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present:Shri Rajesh Garg, Advocate with Shri Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioner. .... Mahesh Grover,J. The counsel for the petitioner states that one of the reasons which have weighed with the Executing Court to decline the prayer made before it in the execution of the judgment and decree dated 8.9.2003, was that the petitioner was unable to show the violation of the terms of the decree, i.e., raising of construction by the respondents. He prays that the petitioner may be granted one opportunity to demonstrate before the Executing Court that the respondents had, indeed, violated the terms of the decree and that the impugned order be set aside only to enable the petitioner to show before the Executing Court the aforesaid fact. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that there does not seem to be any legal infirmity in the impugned order as the Executing Court was right in proceeding on the assumption C.R. No.6736 of 2010 (O&M) -2- .... that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate the violation of the terms of the decree, i.e., raising of construction by the respondents. The revision petition is, thus, held to be without any merit, but since the prayer of the petitioner has been declined on the ground of his failure to show the violation of the terms of the decree, it is directed that if he is able to show such a violation by producing some material, then in that eventuality, the Executing Court will evaluate his prayer afresh in the light thereof. With the aforesaid observation, the revision petition is disposed of. October 13,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge