Civil Revision No. 3131 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3131 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.5.2010 Mohd. Jameel .. Petitioner v. Sanjiv Kumar and ohers .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. D. N. Ganeriwala, Advocate for the petitioner. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 27.4.2010, passed by the learned court below, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner claiming himself to be in possession of the property regarding which a decree was passed in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2, were dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 18.9.1999 executed by Rupinder Singh. It was decreed on 15.6.2004. The judgment and decree of the trial court was upheld upto this Court. The objections filed by the judgment-debtors also met with the same fate. It is thereafter that objections were filed by the petitioner claiming that he had been given the land on lease by Rupinder Singh since 7.4.1999. The learned court below having dismissed the same, the petitioner is before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned court below was required to frame issues while deciding the objections raised by the petitioner once he was claiming that he is in possession of the property. There being legal infirmity in the order passed, the objections having been dismissed summarily, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The facts of the case reveal that the objections filed by the petitioner are totally frivolous. In fact, he is a person, who has been created by the judgment-debtors just to frustrate the execution of the decree passed in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2, which has been upheld upto this court. Though it is claimed by the petitioner that he is in possession of the property since 7.4.1999 Civil Revision No. 3131 of 2010 [2] as a lessee, but it was admitted that there was no mention about the lease of the property to him in the agreement to sell executed by Rupinder Singh in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2, who had allegedly leased out the property to the petitioner. The agreement to sell was signed on 18.9.1999. Besides this, the learned court below has also noticed that only a photo copy of the alleged lease deed is on record. Considering the aforesaid facts, this court finds that the objections raised by the petitioner are totally frivolous and in case the petitioner is not able to make out a prima facie case showing substance in the objections raised by him, the decree holders cannot be made to face another trial for years together to enjoy the fruits of the decree passed in their favour. For the reasons mentioned above, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 19.5.2010 mk