Civil Revision No. 7442 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7442 of 2011 Date of decision. 02.12.2011 Sangat Singh .... Petitioner Versus Parkash Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. P.P.S. Duggal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Sangat Singh, a 70 years old person has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to learned Executing Court to dispose of his execution application dated 04.08.2007 (Annexure P-4) expeditiously by stipulating some period for the disposal thereof. The petitioner has claimed that he had filed a civil suit in the year 1996, which was decided on 18.10.2005. According to him, he filed execution application under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 CPC on 04.08.2007, which is pending till date, in which every delaying tactic is adopted by the respondents. Civil Revision No. 7442 of 2011 --2-- It is a case where the petitioner had voiced his grievance against the Gram Panchayat and others against making out a drain through his house. He sought relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the said illegal drain from his residential house/court yard. The said claim of the petitioner was accepted by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ferozepur, vide judgment and decree dated 18.10.2005. No appeal was filed against the same and now the petitioner has sought execution of the said judgment and decree, which he claims to be delayed without any reason. I have heard Mr. P.P.S.Duggal, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the orders passed in the execution application of the petitioner as are extracted in the grounds of petition. He has submitted that Sangat Singh, petitioner is a 70 years old person and he is litigating for removal of the illegally made drain through his house, which is used to drain filthy water of the houses of several persons. According to him, it is very difficult for him to live with the drain passing through his house. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner seem to justify the prayer for expeditious disposal of the execution application. The copies of the orders passed in the execution application show that learned Executing Court is not paying due attention to the execution application brought by the petitioner. There are only two respondents in the execution application and learned Executing Court has Civil Revision No. 7442 of 2011 --3-- not been able to even serve them with notice of the same despite having made orders on fifteen occasions. Learned Executing Court seems to be oblivious of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding service of notice. So this is a fit case, where this court should come to the rescue of the petitioner by issuing directions to learned Executing Court to expeditiously execute the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2005. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and learned Executing Court is directed to expeditiously decide the execution application preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 02.12.2011 JUDGE dinesh