CR No.6058 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6058 of 2007 Date of Decision: 11.11.2008 Surta ....Petitioner Vs. Ravitar Singh ..Respondent Present: Mr.R.C.Kapoor,Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.V.D.Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.9.2007 passed by the learned Executing Court vide which objections filed by the judgment debtor were ordered to be dismissed. The plaintiff/respondent succeeded in a suit for recovery. In the execution application objections were raised that the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred under the Haryana Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act (for short the Act) as the petitioner was an agriculturist. It was also pleaded that the decree holder was money lender and in the absence of Money CR No.6058 of 2007 2 lending licence the suit could not have been decreed. The learned trial court rejected the objections by observing that all the pleas now sought to be raised were raised before the learned trial court which were rejected and therefore, it was not open to the Executing Court to go behind the decree. Vide order dated 12.5.2008 the petitioner was directed to pay the principal amount on the adjourned date failing which the interim order was directed to be vacated. In spite of order passed the principal amount has not been paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the provisions of Section 17 (2)(h) and 2(g) of the Act the execution application was not maintainable. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in any case, issues should have been framed to adjudicate upon the controversy. In support of this contention reliance was placed on the judgment of this court in the case of Rajbir Singh and another Vs. Tej Pal and others 2000(2) PLJ 350. On consideration of the matter, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner failed to show that it was agricultural loan or the petitioner was agriculturist. The defendant also does not fall within the definition of 'creditor' under the Act. Prima facie provisions of the Act do not apply to the facts of the present case and therefore, reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment of this court in the case of Rajbir Singh and another Vs. Tej Pal and others (supra) is misconceived. Learned trial court was fully justified in rejecting the objections CR No.6058 of 2007 3 as the contentions now sought to be raised already stood rejected while passing the decree against the petitioner. No merit. Dismissed. 11.11.2008 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge