IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. NO.1651 OF 2009 DATE OF ORDER: 25.3.2009 Sahab Singh ....Petitioner(s) Versus Ajit Singh and others ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Shilak Ram Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH, J. (ORAL) By filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the judgment-debtor have challenged orders dated 17.1.2009 (Annexure P.2) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Sonepat whereby the objections filed by the judgment-debtor have been dismissed. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondents/decree holders had filed a suit for mandatory injunction with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the petitioner-judgment debtor and his two brothers for demolition of toilet and for restraining him not to construct in the common street. Suit was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 27.10.2004 and the same was upheld in appeal as well. Thereafter, respondents-decree holders levied execution wherein objections dated 1.8.2006 were filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor, which have been placed on record as Annexure P.1 with the present petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-judgment debtor and perused the impugned paper book. In my opinion, the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the objections. C.R. NO.1651 OF 2009 #2# Learned counsel has argued that the toilet, which is sought to be demolished by way of execution application, is not situated in the street but it is, in fact, within his own plot. The contention is baseless. In his objections, judgment debtor has, no where stated that the illegally constructed toilet, which was found to be situated in the street and was injuncted to be removed by the decree dated 27.10.2004 has been removed by him. It has never been the case of judgment-debtors that there existed another toilet situated on his own plot rather learned counsel has tried to raise the same issue, which has already been decided. Learned Executing Court, in para No.4 of its order, has observed as under: “In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record placed on record, it is very much clear that decree holder has filed this suit in which a specific issue was framed by learned trial Court that whether defendants have raised construction illegally in the portion in question marked by letters ABCD as alleged in para No.9 of the plaint and that suit was decreed to the effect that defendants were directed to demolish the illegal construction over that portion and that portion was declared as part of the main gali. Appeal filed by the JDs was also dismissed. Perusal of the judgment goes to show that a local commission has already been appointed in this case and according to which learned trial Court and learned appellate court opined that JDs have constructed latrine on the street, which is an illegal encroachment. Hence, the objections of the JDs that entire construction raised by JDs is situated within their own plot and without proper demarcation is not tenable. The site in dispute has already been demarcated by Local Commission. Hence, there is no need to appoint any other Local Commission in this regard. Hence objection petition is being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. Now warrant of C.R. NO.1651 OF 2009 #3# possession be issued for 21.2.2009.” In view of the above, I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine. March 25, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE