C.R. No. 5998 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 5998 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 17.09.2010 Tansukh .......... Petitioner Versus Tara Chand ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Satbir Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the orders dated 17.3.2010 (Annexure P-1) and 29.5.2010 (Annexure P-2), passed by the learned executing Court, vide which objections filed by the petitioner to the execution of the decree stands declined. The petitioner filed objections to the execution of the decree on two grounds. First ground was, that earlier execution application filed by the decree-holder was dismissed in default and the restoration application also dismissed. The second execution application for execution of the decree was not competent. The second objection raised was, that the execution of the decree was, that the petitioner was not in unauthorized occupation of the property in dispute, therefore, he could not be C.R. No. 5998 of 2010 -2- **** evicted in execution of the decree. The learned executing Court rejected the objections by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Yash Pal Sharma Vs. Ajit Singh & Others 2004(1)HRR 413, wherein it has been held that the second execution application on dismissal of the previous application was not barred. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Yash Pal Sharma Vs. Ajit Singh & Others (Supra) the first objection was rightly dismissed. The learned executing Court rightly dismissed the second objection also, as there was a decree for possession in favour of the decree-holder the petitioner could not object to the execution merely by claiming, that he was not in unauthorized possession, as judgment debtor was bound by the decree. The order impugned being in consonance of law, does not call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. 17.09.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE