IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2068 of 2009 Date of decision: 20.4.2009 Rajinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus Ajit Singh Bajaj ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Manish Prabhakar, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 13.9.2008 passed by Smt. Harreet Kaur, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar in Execution Case No.42/27.11.2006 whereby application filed by the petitioner/judgment- debtor for staying the execution has been dismissed. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 31.10.2006 passed against him is still pending and therefore, the Executing Court ought to have stayed the execution proceedings against him. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 151 CPC along with application for stay under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against him and the aforesaid application was not pressed by the petitioner and was dismissed as such by the trial Court. No other reason has been mentioned by the judgment-debtor/petitioner before the Executing Court for staying the execution proceedings against him except the one that his application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is pending. Moreover, objections filed by the CR No.2068 of 2009 -2- petitioner before the Executing Court were also dismissed on 14.12.2007 and the respondent-decree-holder was allowed police help for execution of the warrants of attachment vide order dated 17.12.2007. In fact, the petitioner had filed an application for stay of execution proceedings earlier also which was declined on 14.12.2007 by the Executing Court. The petitioner has concealed this material fact in his petition. Thus, the petitioner is making every effort to frustrate the execution of decree which cannot be permitted in law. No merits. Dismissed. April 20, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE