Civil Revision No. 2015 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2015 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 22.4.2009 Prem Kaur and others ..... Petitioners vs Raman Deep Singh and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to the order passed by the learned Executing Court whereby the objections filed by the petitioners in execution of order passed by the Appellate court under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, have been dismissed. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondents filed a petition for eviction of the petitioners from the suit property which was dismissed by the Rent Controller but the learned Appellate Authority accepted the appeal and eviction of the petitioners was ordered. It is in execution thereof that the petitioners filed objections stating that in fact they are owner of the property on the basis of will executed by Kultar Singh during his life time. A civil suit to that effect was filed by the petitioners and during the pendency of the suit, the petitioners should not be evicted from the home. The objections having been dismissed by the learned Executing Court, the petitioners/ judgment debtors are before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they being in possession of the property on the basis of a will executed by Kultar Singh, be not dispossessed in execution of the order passed in favour of the decree holders by the Appellate Authority till such time the civil suit filed by the petitioners is not decided. As against the will projected by the petitioners, the respondents have also claimed ownership of the property on the basis of a will executed by Kultar Singh in their favour. Civil Revision No. 2015 of 2009 (2) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The learned court below has rightly observed that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree passed in favour of the decree-holder. As far as the pendency of the civil suit filed by the petitioners claiming ownership on the basis of will executed by Kultar Singh is concerned, it was fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners at the time of hearing that in the suit the petitioners were not granted any interim injunction by the learned court below. Once there is no interim injunction in favour of the petitioners in the suit filed by them claiming ownership of the property, it would be totally misconceived to rely on the pendency of that suit to claim that a decree passed against the petitioners be not executed. Dismissed. 22.4.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge