CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3857 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 18, 2009 Subash Chander .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab 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. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr. H.P.S.Ishar, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order Annexure P-8 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar, exercising the powers of Commissioner. On 12.11.1984, an order of eviction was passed on an application filed by the State under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973. This order was passed against one Baldev Raj. Petitioner claims that he had no knowledge of the same and continued to be in possession as execution of the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3857 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: order was never sought. The petitioner came to learn about this order on 16.1.2006. He filed a suit for declaration, where no interim order is granted in his favour. In execution proceedings sought, the petitioner filed detailed objections under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 42 CPC on the ground that notice should have been issued to him. The said objections were dismissed on 7.12.2006. The petitioner claims that the order has been passed without considering his objection regarding limitation on the ground that the order dated 12.11.1984 has become final. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order, contending that the execution could not have been carried out after more than three years. The petitioner also filed written arguments in support of his submissions. The grievance is that the Collector still dismissed his appeal without considering the grounds raised in the written arguments. He has, thus, filed the present writ petition. It is not disputed that the order of eviction was passed on 12.11.1984, which was allowed to become final. The petitioner concededly has challenged the order in the execution proceedings on 16.1.2006 after a lapse of 22 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner conceded during the course of arguments that he has already been dispossessed. Accordingly, the appeal filed by him was rendered infructuous and was so dismissed. The objection of the petitioner that the execution of this decree could not have been sought after lapse of so much of time can not now be gone into since he has already been dispossessed. The petitioner otherwise has advanced no reason as to why he did not challenge the decree passed in the year 1984. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicability of provisions of Article 135 of the Limitation CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3857 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: Act may not be called for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. March 18, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE