Civil Revision No. 1983 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1983 of 2010 Date of decision : 25.3.2010 Sarup Singh ....Petitioner Versus Om Parkash ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner herein was a judgment-debtor against whom the relevant suit, for the recovery of indicated amount, had been decreed. In the course of execution application, he raised a plea that there had been a compromise between him and decree holder and that he had paid up the agreed amount against the receipt. The plea did not find favour with the learned Executing Court which held that the the signatures purporting to be that the decree holder did not appear to match with his admitted signature. It was also observed by the learned Trial Court that the report furnished by a document expert was also supportive of the plea raised by the decree holder. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contends that the view calls for interference in view of the fact that the petitioner herein had also examined an expert to counter the report furnished by the expert examined by the decree holder- Civil Revision No. 1983 of 2010 2 respondent nut that the learned Executing Court did not even notice, much less appreciate, his testimony which was supportive of the plea raised by the petitioner herein. The plea raised is neither here nor there. Learned Executing Court had appropriately recorded that the plea of compromise does not merit acceptance as being unnatural and further that the compromise had not been independently announced to the learned Executing Court which had also not been called upon to certify it. That observation is adequate enough to cement the view obtained by the learned Executing Court. IN that view of things, the non-consideration of the testimony of the expert examined by the petitioner herein ceases to be of any relevance. For the very reasons noticed by the learned Trial Court, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed in limine. March 25, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Civil Revision No. 1983 of 2010 3