CIVIL REVISION NO.1980 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 02, 2008 Punjab Wakf Board, Chandigarh .....Petitioner VERSUS Gurcharan Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Third party objections filed by the petitioner-Punjab Wakf Board in execution application have been declined. Accordingly, the petitioner has impugned the said order through this revision petition. Petitioner filed an objection in the pending execution where warrant of possession of the property has been issued in favour of Gurcharan Singh, decree holder. It is pleaded that the property in dispute is in the ownership of the objector-petitioner as it is notified under Section 5 of the Wakf Act to be the wakf property. It is further claimed that the petitioner has been leasing out the property. Presently, it is on lease and in possession of Tejinder CIVIL REVISION NO.1980 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: Singh since 1.7.1993. Reference is made to lease deed to say that the same was taken in possession by virtue of said lease deed. The decree in execution is, thus, objected to on various grounds. Decree holder contested the objection petition and raised preliminary objection to the effect that the petition is not maintainable. It is pleaded that the present petition is barred by principle of resjudi- cata. It is pointed out that the matter has already been decided by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, on 2.6.1998 and it has been held that Tejinder Singh is not a tenant of Wakf Board over the property in dispute and, thus, the present objection petition has just been filed to harass the decree holder. Plea further is that Tejinder Singh has fabricated this record in connivance with petitioner-Wakf Board and as such, no reliance can be placed on the same. As per the revenue record also, the said piece of land is shown to be in possession of Gursewak Singh and not Tejinder Singh. Rather, the suit decided earlier would show that the decree holder is the owner of the disputed property, which he had given on mortgage to the judgment debtor. There is not much dispute that Tejinder Singh had filed a civil suit against the present decree holder as well as against Punjab Wakf Board. The said suit, however, was dismissed on 2.6.1998. This decree has attained finality as the same has not been challenged by the judgment debtor. Thus, it is seen that the rights of the Punjab Wakf Board stand adjudicated and as such, it can not take benefit of Section 90 of the Wakf Act by challenging the decree under execution on the pretext that Wakf Board was not made a CIVIL REVISION NO.1980 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: party in the said suit. It has been found by the Executing Court that in view of the decree dated 2.6.1998, the petitioner-Wakf Board would have no authority or a right to challenge the execution of the impugned decree. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that though Punjab Wakf Board was made a party in a civil suit by Tejinder Singh but was later dropped and hence, the decree will not bind the petitioner in any manner would not help the cause of the petitioner. There is nothing on record that Punjab Wakf Board was deleted and even if deleted, the said finding can not be ignored completely while deciding the present suit. Atleast, this finding would inter-alia bind the decree holder and the judgment debtor and Wakf Board if wants to plead any ignorance about this decree, would have to challenge the same as earlier it was a party and, thus, can not be said to be unaware of the suit as well as the outcome thereof completely. I do not find any legal infirmity in the view taken by the Executing Court and accordingly would dismiss the revision petition in limine. May 02 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE