ESA No.15 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** ESA No.15 of 2010 Date of decision : 14.3.2011 Gram Panchayat, Kallar Bhaini ........Appellant Vs. Rajinder Kaur & another .........Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL : Present:- Mr.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellant Mr.Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1 --- L.N.MITTAL, J (Oral) : Gram Panchayat (objector) having failed in both the Courts below, has filed the instant execution second appeal. Suit filed by respondent No.1 (decree holder) against respondent No.2 (judgment debtor) was decreed. Respondent No.1 filed execution petition. In the said execution petition, one Harjit Singh filed objections alleging that he was in possession of the suit plot (part of subject matter of the decree) as lessee under Gram Panchayat. Objections preferred by Harjit Singh were dismissed by the executing Court, as affirmed in appeal. Thereafter, Gram Panchayat filed objections taking the same plea that Gram Panchayat is owner of the plot in question and is in its possession through Harjit Singh lessee. The said objections have been dismissed by the executing Court i.e. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala vide impugned order dated 13.9.2008, as affirmed in first appeal by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide impugned judgment dated 22.2.2010. Feeling aggrieved, Gram Panchayat-objector has filed the instant second appeal. ESA No.15 of 2010 -2- I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Appellant had filed separate civil suit against respondent No.1-decree holder seeking declaration that appellant is owner in possession of the disputed plot. Judgment and decree dated 2.12.1997, sought to be executed in the instant execution petition, were also challenged in the said suit. However, the said suit has been dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 10.6.2008. Consequently, the objector-appellant cannot succeed in the instant second appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (L.N.MITTAL) JUDGE 14.3.2011 akm