C. R. No. 3244 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 3244 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 13, 2010 Bhagwan Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Kundan Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arjun Lakhanpal, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by objector Bhagwan Singh under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 14.11.2009 (Annexure P-5), passed by Executing Court i.e. learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tarn Taran. Respondent no.1 – decree-holder filed execution petition against respondents no.2 and 3 – judgment-debtors. In the said execution petition, Bhagwan Singh – petitioner herein filed objection petition (Annexure P-2) dated 03.10.2009. Counsel for the petitioner made statement (Annexure P-4) dated 14.11.2009 in the Executing Court stating C. R. No. 3244 of 2010 2 that since the execution application had been disposed of on 02.05.2009, therefore, he did not want to pursue this objection petition and the objector would take further action as per law. In view of said statement, the Executing Court, vide impugned order dated 14.11.2009 (Annexure P-5), disposed of the objection petition filed by the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that vide order dated 02.05.2009 (Annexure P-3), execution petition filed by decree-holder – respondent no.1 stood dismissed as fully satisfied, but now, the decree-holder wants to take possession of the land belonging to the objector, which was in excess of the share of the judgment-debtors. The contention cannot be accepted. Order Annexure P-3 had been passed on 02.05.2009. However, in the same order, it is mentioned that application filed by decree-holder under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be taken up separately by treating it as a separate file and would be disposed of separately in accordance with law. The petitioner filed objection petition Annexure P-2 almost five months thereafter. Counsel for the petitioner, while making statement Annexure P-4 in the Executing court, was very well aware of order dated 02.05.2009 (Annexure P-3), but in spite thereof, it was stated that the objector did not want to pursue the objection petition. In view of said statement, the Executing Court was left with no C. R. No. 3244 of 2010 3 option but to dispose of the objection petition accordingly. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Executing Court. On the other hand, the said order has been passed as per statement made by counsel for the objector in the Executing court. For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is completely misconceived. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. July 13, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE