C.R. No.141 of 2008 12.5.2010 Present: Mr. Anup Rattan, counsel for the petitioner. None for respondent No.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that copy of execution petition is at page-9 of the paper book. The perusal of execution petition coupled with prayer made therein indicates that petitioner has made prayer in the execution petition that judgment debtors are interfering in his possession and he may be put in possession of the suit land. The issues were framed. The evidence led by the parties was considered by learned Executing Court. The interference on the land was not established. It has not been disputed that petitioner has been declared owner in possession of land denoted by letters ABCD shown in red ink in the site plan Ex.PW-1/A in judgment dated 19.12.2002 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Court No.II, Amb in Case No.43/97. In the execution petition, the prayer has been made for putting the petitioner in possession of land in question whereas the Court has already declared him owner in possession of the land as indicated above. The learned Executing Court has recorded finding of no interference on the land in question. No error of jurisdiction has been shown. There is no merit in revision which is accordingly dismissed. May 12, 2010(sks) (Kuldip Singh)) Judge.