IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 5023 of 2008 Date of Decision: 23.7.2009 Ekamkar Singh ....Petitioner. Versus Sukhdev Singh and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Arhiant Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The objector-petitioner has assailed the orders dated 8.9.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur, affirming that of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkotla, dated 5.8.2008 whereby the objections filed by him under Order 21 Rules 35, 97, 98, 99, 100 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure were dismissed. The Additional District Judge, Sangrur, while upholding the order of the trial court had, in paras 9 and 10, of its order recorded as under:- “9. Now the objector is Ekamkar Singh son of Dhanna Singh, who also claims ownership over the suit property under execution. At the very outset the matter has already been set at rest by the Hon'ble High Court regarding the nature of the suit property that it was a passage and was ownership of Gram CR No. 5023 of 2008 -2- Panchayat. Then by way of principles of resjudicata, the same very issue is not liable to be re-agitated on behalf of the present appellant/objector that he is the owner in possession of the suit property qua the ownership. The issue stands resolved and no further contentions by anyone now including the objector are entertainable. 10. It is expedient to refer here that previously when warrant of possession were issued against Arjan Singh on 23.9.1997 then these were received unexecuted with the report dated 4.10.1997 of Dev Raj, Field Kanungo, Amargarh that Arjan Singh was called, but who did not turn up, then Major Singh son of Gurmel Singh was called, who did not produce any stay order, but he expressed that he will not allow the demolition of Varandah at any cost. Apparently previously at the first instance objections were raised by Ajmer Singh, then by Major Singh and now by Ekamkar Singh are nothing but the abuse of process of law. The decree has been passed in respect of property bearing khasra No. 193/1/1, 190/1 (0-8) and it is operative against the suit land irrespective of the fact who inherits it one after the other. The CR No. 5023 of 2008 -3- provisions of law as contained in the Code of Civil Procedure are meant for securing justice and not for abusing the same. The present objections are clearly the abuse of process of law and have rightly been dismissed by the learned executing Court. The order under appeal needs no interference. The appeal is dismissed with costs.” In view of the above, no ground to exercise jurisdiction by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made. Dismissed. July 23, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE