IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 197 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 13.1.2010 Madan Lal ....Petitioner Versus Tarsem Lal and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. P.K.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M.No.625-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. C.R. No. 197 of 2010 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.11.2009. The objection of the petitioner is that the order of the Consolidation Officer which was passed initially on 8.11.1995, has attained finality on 30.6.2009. It is the conceded case of the petitioner that the decree was passed on the basis of Annexure P-1 which is the demarcation report against which he has no grievance. The perusal of the order shows that the order dated 8.11.1995 was taken into consideration and the measurement was carried out in accordance C.R. No. 197 of 2010 (O&M) -2- with it. The instant objection filed by the petitioner is that the order of the consolidation authorities passed in 2009 ought to be taken into consideration before executing the decree. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am unable to agree to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 8.11.1995 passed by the consolidation authorities was the same which attained finality in the year 2009 and the decree was passed on the basis of the demarcation report Exhibit P-1. If that be so then the objections are totally frivolous because the order of the consolidation authorities has been duly adhered to while carrying out the demarcation in 1995 and this very order ultimately became final in 2009 and if the decree had been passed on the basis of the demarcation of 1995 then the same demarcation will hold good because order of consolidation authorities in 2009 was merely an affirmation of the order of the consolidation authorities in 1995. The objections are, therefore, meaningless for the simple reason that obviously the executing Court cannot go beyond the decree passed by the civil court. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 13.1.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss