Civil Revision No.6893 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6893 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 11.11.2011 Naresh Chand Singla ....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and another ....RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL *** Present : Mr.A.G.S.Dhillon, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** A.N.JINDAL, J (Oral) This petition assails the order dated 16.08.2011, passed by the Addl. District Judge, Patiala, dismissing the objection petition filed by the petitioner Naresh Chand Singla. The factual matrix of the case is that Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited-respondents (herein referred as 'the respondents'), being the decree holder got the House No.17 Market Marg, Opposite Distt. Mandi Office Sirhind Road, Patiala, attached and sold in execution of the decree passed against Mohan Lal. The objector filed the objection petition under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC, claiming that judgment-debtor Mohan Lal was the owner of 1/8th share of the house and not the exclusive owner of the same. Besides, he has also averred in this petition that there are irregularities in the sale proceedings and the auction of the property is a result of fraud. Reply to the objection petition was filed. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the trial Court dismissed the objection petition. The executing Court had also framed the issues in order to reach the right conclusion but both these issues were decided against the objector. The objector has claimed that actually Late Maya Wanti was the owner of the house in dispute and she had died on 30.09.1999. Since she Civil Revision No.6893 of 2011 (O&M) 2 had bequeathed a Will in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the said house had come to his share, as such, it could not be attached against the debts accruing against Mohan Lal Singla. The trial Court had also framed the issues in order to reach the right conclusion but both these issues were decided against the objector. The main reliance placed by the petitioner is the sale deed dated 18.04.1973 through which the property is said to have been purchased by Mayawanti. Having perused the sale deed produced before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same cannot be connected with the property in dispute as the said property measuring 0-12 marlas relates to Village Tripari and is out of Khata No.15/18 Khasra No.40/2/1/4, Khata No.27/30 Khasra No.39, 22/1/1, whereas the property in dispute is stated to be situated at Sirhind Road, Patiala. Now coming to the Will, the trial Court has also made detailed discussions about the invalidity of the Will dated 16.01.1998. It would also be significant to mention here that the said Will was not pleaded in the objection petition filed by the objector on 09.02.2008, therefore, the inference which could be drawn is that objector had forged this Will lateron in order to avoid the auction of the property. Again Naresh Chand Singla has failed to prove the execution of the Will. He has neither produced the scribe nor the marginal witnesses of the Will to prove its contents, therefore, the Will cannot be said to be proved according to law. Even otherwise the Will in question is shrouded by many suspicious circumstances. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. November 11, 2011. (A.N.JINDAL) mamta JUDGE