IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6492 of 2009 Date of decision: 18.2.2010 Sheela & ors ......Petitioner(s) Versus Swaran Lata & ors ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Satbir Rathore, Advocate for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. As per the averments made in this petition, a decree for possession in favour of respondent No.1 was passed vide judgment dated 17.11.1981 with a condition that the plaintiff-respondent will make good the deficiency in Court fee of Rs.6500/- within one week of the judgment and in case of failure to do so, the suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Decree sheet was ordered to be drawn after expiry of the above period. According to the petitioners, the respondent-decree-holder filed an execution petition dated 8.11.1993 only on 25.11.1993 i.e after the expiry of period of limitation. It is further averred that in the aforesaid execution application, warrant of possession was issued against the petitioners vide order dated 9.10.1999 without summoning the original file and without checking up the payment of deficiency in Court fee. The petitioners filed objections dated 8.4.2009. However, the aforesaid objections were dismissed by the Executing Court vide impugned order dated 29.9.2009. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that deficiency in Court fee had not been made good by the decree-holder in terms of the decree and judgment CR No.6492 of 2009 -2- dated 17.11.1981 and hence, the execution petition was liable to be dismissed as the suit filed by the decree-holder was deemed to have been dismissed. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that in the objection petition, the petitioners have not raised the said objection and in the decree drawn in pursuance of the judgment dated 17.11.1981, the factum of affixation of the full court fee has been mentioned and therefore, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is without any force and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the objection petition (which is attached as Annexure P-2 with this petition) filed by the petitioners would show that the petitioners have not raised any specific objection with regard to non- payment of deficient Court fee as per the judgment dated 17.11.1981. Learned counsel for the petitioners was also unable to controvert the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent to the effect that the factum of affixation of the full court fee is mentioned in the decree drawn by the Court in pursuance of the judgment dated 17.11.1981. Thus, the objection raised before this Court with regard to the deficiency of Court fee is without any merit. No other point has been raised. Thus, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. February 18, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE