CR No. 6417 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 6417 of 2008 Decided on : 20-11-2008 Kimti Lal ....Petitioner VERSUS Didar Singh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Ravi Kaant, Advocate for the petitioner. MAHESH GROVER, J Learned counsel for the petitioner states that a compromise decree was passed on 23.4.2007 which according to him is contrary to the provisions of law. Further contends that on 20.5.2008, he moved an application for setting aside the compromise decree which is still pending. In the meantime, execution application was preferred by the respondent in April, 2008 to which the petitioner has filed objections on 20.5.2008 which have now been dismissed by virtue of the impugned order. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in case the compromise decree is executed his rights will be prejudicially affected as he has moved an application for setting aside the compromise decree. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the revision petition deserves to be dismissed. The petitioner is a tenant who had suffered a compromise decree with the landlord undertaking to vacate the premises within a particular time. The CR No. 6417 of 2008 2 compromise was effected before the learned Rent Controller. After more than one year, the petitioner chose to resile from the compromise on hypertechnical pleas. It is obvious that the petitioner's attempt is mala fide as he has preferred to keep quite for more than one year before raising such a plea before the Rent Controller. The contention of the learned counsel that the compromise was under duress is also not borne out as the application for setting aside the compromise decree has been moved belatedly. If at all there is any substance in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner then such an application would have been moved immediately after the compromise was effected and he was not expected to sleep over it for more than one year. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. Dismissed. November 20 , 2008 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge