IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 461 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: January 21, 2011 Hardeep Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Swaranpreet Singh and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. G.S. Toor, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) The petitioner assails the order dated 27.10.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Barnala whereby he dismissed the objection petition filed by the objector Hardeep Singh under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC. Swaranpreet Singh decree holder respondent (herein referred as, 'the respondent') had obtained the decree against Jagsir Singh for recovery of Rs.1,07,419/- along with interest and costs on 22.9.2003 on the basis of the document dated 13.12.2000. However, the petitioner being the brother of the judgment debtor filed objections to the attachment of the property on the basis of the family settlement dated 3.11.2001. Both the courts below dismissed the objection petition. The first appellate court while ignoring the alleged family settlement observed as under :- “.......... The Photostat copy of the said writing has also been placed on record but the said writing shows that it has not been signed by the objector/ appellant nor the said writing has since been incorporated in the revenue record since 2001 regarding the change of ownership. Moreover, by way of alleged writing, immovable property of more than Rs.100/- is alleged to be transferred by the other co-sharers against the payment of Rs.3 lacs as alleged by the objector/ appellant himself which can only be allowed by way of registered document.........” Civil Revision No. 461 of 2011 -2- *** The observations made by the first appellate court appeal to the reason. The writing appears to be concocted one as the same was never acted upon since 2001. There was no requirement to frame issues and to try the objection petition as suit since Order XXI Rule 58 is divided into two parts. The first part talks of deciding the objection petition after requiring the evidence of both the parties whereas the proviso to Order XXI Rule 58 indicates that if the objections are found to be superfluous and has been designed to delay the execution proceedings, then the executing court could refuse to entertain the same. As such, no fault could be found in the impugned orders. Consequently, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. January 21, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge