CR No. 8388 of 2010. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR No. 8388 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 22.12.2010 Sukhpal Singh and others ....Petitioners. Vs. Gurbachan Singh. ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA ****** Present:- Mr. A.S. Jattana, Advocate, for the petitioners. HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) CM No. 32591-CII of 2010. Application is allowed as prayed for. CR No. 8388 of 2010 The plaintiff-respondent Gurbachan Singh filed a suit for recovery on the basis of pronote dated 13.06.2003. The said suit was decreed by the learned trial court on 01.09.2005. The first appeal was dismissed on 10.01.2007. However, R.S.A. No. 2812 of 2007 against the said judgment and decree stands admitted and the prayer for stay of the execution of decree stands declined vide order dated 13.07.2007. In execution proceedings of the aforesaid decree, the petitioners filed objections that the pronote is fraudulent and thus,the decree cannot be executed. It is the said objection, which has been dismissed by the learned Executing Court on 29.10.2010 and the property attached has been ordered to be put to sale. CR No. 8388 of 2010. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the objection raised by the petitioners to the execution of the decree are separate and distinct than the plea raised by the petitioners in the suit and therefore, they have right to raise such objections in execution. It is argued that the pronote dated 13.06.2003 was not executed and in fact, pronote dated 20.06.2000 was executed by Sukhpal Singh and therefore, the decree passed cannot be executed. The arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is totally untenable. In fact, the argument raised by the petitioners was examined when the second appeal was admitted on 13.07.2007 and stay was declined. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised same arguments again as raised while declining stay of execution of the decree in second appeal. The Judgment Debtor-petitioner cannot raise the same arguments as were raised and not accepted while granting decree on the basis of pronote dated 13.06.2003. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial court which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Petition dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) 22.12.2010 JUDGE aj