CR No.316 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.316 of 2009 Date of decision: 21.1.2009 Manpreet Kaur ......Petitioner Versus Har Kaur and another ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. OPS Tanwar, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated17.12.2008 passed by the Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Ambala City, dismissing the third party objections filed by the petitioner in execution of judgment dated 27.7.2006 passed in Civil Suit No.11 of 2002 titled as Smt. Har Kaur v. Gulzar Singh. A decree for possession by way of eviction of judgment debtor defendant-Gulzar Singh (now respondent No.2) from the suit property in favour of Smt. Har Kaur respondent No.1(plaintiff) was passed. This decree had attained finality as appeal filed by Gulzar Singh, judgment debtor had already been dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 13.3.2008. Even objections filed by judgment debtor-Gulzar Singh have been dismissed. The petitioner, who is wife of Gulzar Singh-judgment debtor, filed the objections which were not supported by any affidavit. The objections filed by the petitioner have been attached with this petition. A perusal of the same would show that the objections of the petitioner are based on the ground that the judgment and decree in question was passed in illegal manner. From the judicial record i.e judgment dated 27.7.2006 CR No.316 of 2009 2 passed in Civil Suit No.11 of 2002 titled as Smt. Har Kaur v. Gulzar Singh, it is clear that the petitioner-Manpreet Kaur is not a party in the original civil suit. Thus, the said argument is not available to her. Even otherwise, the aforesaid decree has been upheld by this Court. It is also relevant to mention that Gulzar Singh judgment-debtor is the son of decree-holder who is an old lady. In the impugned order, the Executing Court has also noticed that as per the report of the Bailiff, Gulzar Singh-judgment debtor has been putting hindrance in execution of warrants of possession on the spot and Bailiff demanded police help for execution of warrants of possession. Thus, it seems that the petitioner had filed the objections only to delay the execution of the decree against her husband. Thus, the Executing Court keeping in view all the facts and circumstances` rightly rejected the objection petition filed by the petitioner, being without any merit. Dismissed. January 21, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE