IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.3575 of 2010 Date of Decision : 12.8.2010 Satinder Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Naresh Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Mahesh.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.4.2010. The petitioner is the judgment-debtor. He filed objections stating that the attachment of the property in question is illegal as this is the only residential house which the objector has. The Executing Court dismissed the objections after noticing that in his cross-examination the petitioner had himself admitted that six shops were existing in the complex, implying thereby that the property in question was not residential. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that merely because the shops exist in the same premises does not imply that the building was non-residential. I am not in agreement with the contention that has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Prima facie there is no material to show that the building is C.R.No.3575 of 2010 -2- residential in character. Rather, there is overwhelming material to the contrary showing that six shops are existing in the same premises. At the preliminary hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to seek instructions from his client as to whether he is willing to satisfy the decree, to which after instructions it has been brought to the notice of this Court that there has been a flat refusal. This indicates the mind set of the judgment-debtor who is not interested in honouring the decree. Having regard to the aforesaid, the petition is held to be without any merit and is dismissed. The Executing Court shall take all necessary steps to ensure the speedy execution of the decree. 12.8.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss