Civil Revision No. 4317 of 1994 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4317 of 1994 Date of decision : 23.3.2010 Badar Din ....Petitioner Versus Noora ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Chaman Lal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner-decree holder filed a plea for initiation of proceedings against the respondent-judgment debtor on an averment that after the inter-partes judgment and decree attained finality, the judgment debtor had encroached upon a part of the gairmumkin pahi. The plea was resisted by the judgment debtor. The following issue came to be framed in the light of controversy between the parties aforementioned:- “Whether the JDs disobeyed the decree for permanent injunction against them in favour of the decree holders/applicants if so its effect?OPA On a perusal of the evidence adduced, the learned Trial Court recorded a finding that though the Local Commissioner did record a finding that there was some encroachment on the property in suit, there is nothing on record to indicate that encroachment Civil Revision No. 4317 of 1994 -2- aforementioned had been done by the respondent-judgment debtor. Shri Chaman Lal Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has not been able to invite my attention to any substantive evidence on record which could justify a finding that the encroachment aforementioned had indeed been made by respondent-judgment debtor. It is neither here nor there for the learned counsel to argue that the respondents being rival whose land is situated next door, were the only persons interested in encroaching upon that land. We would not punish a person just because there is every likelihood of his having violated the orders of the Court. For fixing up the party opposite, it was incumbent upon the petitioner- decree holder to adduce convincing evidence pointing accusatory finger at only the judgment debtor-respondents which has not been done in this case. The averred violation came about in the year 1990. Much water has flown down the bridge since then. It is too late for the petitioner to rake up that issue all over again through the present revision. This is particularly so when there is complete want of evidence that it were judgment debtor-respondents who were accountable for the encroachment aforementioned. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. March 23, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE