IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 28.06.2011 CR No. 3961 of 2011 Kamaljit Kaur ...petitioner Versus Balbir Singh and ors ....respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. S.S. Toor, Advocate, for the petitioner HEMANT GUPTA, J. Legal heir of Bant Singh-defendant No. 1 is in revision before this Court. Earlier Balbir son of Chet Singh and Joginder Kaur wife of Balbir Singh filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming title over the suit property on the basis of the Will dated 19.2.1975 of Chet Singh. The said suit was decreed on 10.5.1996. It was held that the plaintiffs have become owner of the suit land to the extent of 3/8th share. Defendants were restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs to the extent of the share as mentioned in the decree. Defendant No. 1 filed an appeal against the said order but learned counsel for defendant No. 1 made a statement that he has no instructions to continue with the appeal. In view of the said fact, appeal was dismissed on 29.11.1999. Thereafter, it appears that the plaintiffs filed an application for correction of the judgment and decree dated 10.5.1996. In the said proceedings, defendant No. 1-Bant Singh absented from the proceedings and ex-parte proceedings were initiated against him on 25.2.2006. None for the other defendants appeared to contest the petition. On the basis of the unrebutted averments of the plaintiffs, application was CWP No. 3961 of 2011 allowed on 5.4.2006 and the plaintiffs were declared to be the owner in possession in equal shares of the house mentioned in the head note of the plaint. Consequent to the amendment in the judgment and decree, plaintiffs have sought execution of decree and in such proceedings, Mr. Satnam Singh, Advocate has appeared for the legal heirs of the judgment-debtor, Bant Singh and warrants of possession were issued by learned Executing Court on 8.6.2011. It is the said order, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that Bant Singh died on 14.1.2010 and was in possession of the suit property and that Mr. Satnam Singh, Advocate has connived with learned counsel for the plaintiffs which led to adverse orders against the present petitioner. Such allegations of the petitioner cannot be examined in the present revision petition. The appeal against the decree dated 10.5.1996 stands dismissed in the year 1999. Bant Singh has not taken any step to seek for the revival of the appeal for more than 10 years. Even after the appeal was dismissed, Bant Singh has not contested the proceedings for amendment of the decree. In view of the said fact, I do not find any merit in the present petition at the instance of the present petitioner who is deriving her right through Bant Singh and when Bant Singh has not disputed the decree passed in the year 1999 as amended on 5.4.2006 during his life time. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 28.06.2011 preeti