IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.3441 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 15.1.2008 Bharpur Singh and another ....Petitioner(s) through Mrs.Liza Gill, Advocate vs. Rajinder Kaur and another ....Respondent(s) through Mr.P.K.Gupta, Advocate for No.1. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioners are aggrieved at the order dated 9.6.2006 passed by the learned Executing Court-cum-Civil Court (Junior Division), Patiala as well as the order dated 7.6.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala whereby their objection petition under Order 21 Rule 7 CPC has been dismissed and the said order has been further upheld by the learned Appellate Court. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the petitioners staked their claim over the subject property primarily relying upon an alleged agreement to sell arrived at between them and deceased Jagar Singh. The petitioners' claim was that they had paid the full sale consideration and took possession of the subject property. They also claimed that the subject land as well as the piece of land adjoining thereto C.R. No.3441 of 2007 -2- are owned by the Gram Panchayat and the same have been allegedly leased out to them by the Gram Panchayat. The learned Executing Court, however, did not find favour with the aforementioned objection which was turned down. The said order has been further upheld by the learned District Judge. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. The learned Executing Court appears to be right in law in observing that in the absence of any documentary evidence to prove ownership qua the subject property, having regard to the limited scope of interference in the execution proceedings, it was not expedient for it to go into the questions sought to be raised by the petitioners. In other words, the objections raised by the petitioners have been rejected by permitting them to file a fresh suit, if so permissible in law. The order passed by the learned Additional District Judge is also perfectly correct. No exception can be taken to the view formed by the Courts below. Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh suit, if so advised but that shall not preclude the respondents to raise objections against the maintainability thereof. January 15, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE