Civil Revision No. 2750 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2750 of 2011 Date of Decision: 27.4.2011 *** Vijay Singh .. Petitioner Vs. M/s Daulat Ram Harbans Lal .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Aashish Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner-JD against the order dated 12.8.2006 passed by the Executing Court ordering for issuance of warrants of attachment by dismissing his objections filed by the petition for execution of judgment and decree dated 5.8.2003 in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. He has also laid challenge to the order dated 12.3.2011 by dint of which fresh sale warrants of the attached property with sale schedule has been ordered. Heard. It is apposite to mention here that the plea of the judgment debtor that he had paid the decreetal amount outside the Court, during pendency of the execution petition was not believed and his objections were dismissed. The petitioner never challenged the said order of dismissal of objections and the issuance of warrants of attachment at that juncture. Since the petitioner never earlier protested the order of attachment of property, That apart, he never raised the objection that the attached property is more than the amount due to the decree-holder. Thus, no benefit can be given to the petitioner from the case law Ambati Narasayya Vs. M. Subba Rao and Anr. AIR 1990(1) SC (119) and Balakrishnan Vs. Malaiyandi Civil Revision No. 2750 of 2011 2 Konar 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 168, as cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The petitioner, being without any merit, is dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE April 27, 2011 Jiten