C. R. No. 959 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 959 of 2010 Date of Decision : February 16, 2010 M/s Lachman Dass and Sons and others .... Petitioners Vs. Shri Lal Singh .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by judgment debtor (JD) nos.1 to 3 assailing order dated 16.01.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Executing Court i.e. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajpura, thereby dismissing objection petition (Annexure P-5) filed by petitioner no.3 Vijay Kumar alone. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to explain as to on what basis this revision petition has been filed on behalf of petitioners no.1 and 2, who had not even filed any objections before the Executing Court because the objection petition (Annexure P-5) was filed by petitioner no.3 Vijay Kumar alone. The revision petition on behalf of petitioners no.1 and 2 is completely frivolous and is accordingly dismissed. C. R. No. 959 of 2010 2 As regards petitioner no.3, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioner no.3 Vijay Kumar has already moved application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC) for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree, which are sought to be executed. However, mere filing of the said application would not automatically act as stay of execution of ex-parte decree. Petitioner no.3 has not obtained any interim order regarding stay of execution of the decree by moving any application for interim relief in his main application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. In the absence of any interim order, execution petition for execution of decree has to proceed. As regards merits of the objections, it is pleaded that only Ashok Kumar – JD No.4 (since deceased) was Proprietor of JD No.1 firm, whereas petitioners no.2 and 3 were wrongly impleaded as partners of the firm. However, this objection cannot be taken and adjudicated upon in execution petition, when decree has already been passed against all the JDs. The Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. The objections raised by petitioner no.3 have, therefore, been rightly dismissed by the Executing Court. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Executing Court. The revision petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. February 16, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE