Civil Revision No. 6561 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6561 of 2011 Date of decision. 22.11.2011 Vinod .... Petitioner Versus Ram Pal ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Vinod Kumar , the judgment debtor has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 05.08.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, vide which his applications , one under Order 13 Rule 10CPC, the second under section 113 and Order 46 Rules 1 to 3 CPC and the third under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC have been dismissed. Civil Revision No. 6561 of 2011 --2-- The brief facts leading to this revision petition are that Ram Pal, respondent filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale executed in his favour by the petitioner. The said suit was decreed. The petitioner preferred appeal against the same, which was also dismissed. His Regular Second Appeal was also dismissed in limine. Thereafter, Ram Pal filed an application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC for directing Vinod Kumar to execute the sale deed in terms of the decree and get the same registered as also for delivery of possession. In the said execution application , Vinod Kumar has filed the above mentioned applications. In the application filed under Order 13 rule 10 CPC, the judgment debtor had requested the Executing Court to call for the original record from the court of Shri R.K. Sharma, the then learned Civil Judge, Karnal as also from the court of Shri Amit Garg, the then learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal relating to the case decided on 04.07.2009 bearing FIR No.126 dated 03.05.2002. In the second application, the judgment debtor had submitted that there are some important points involved in the case regarding which reference is necessary to be made to this court. In the 3rd application, the judgment debtor had sought direction to the decree holder to place on record the original agreement, so that the same could be verified as to whether the same was a forged or a fabricated document or a genuine document. Civil Revision No. 6561 of 2011 --3-- The applications were opposed by the decree holder. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Executing Court found no merit in the applications. Learned Executing Court has held that no question of importance appears in the case, which could be referred for decision of this court. According to him, the questions sought to be raised by way of the other applications have already been decided in the suit for specific performance, which has been decreed by the trial court and the appeals against the said judgment and decree have been dismissed by the First Appellate Court and this Court. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the judgment debtor has brought this revision petition. I have heard Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has put on record certified copies of his applications moved under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC and Order 13 Rule 10 CPC which have been taken on record. The main grievance voiced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the original agreement was not placed on the file by the decree holder and that the decree has been passed in his favour on the strength of a copy of the same. The question which he now seeks to agitate before the Executing Court about genuineness of the document should have been agitated before the trial court or the Appellate Court. Civil Revision No. 6561 of 2011 --4-- The said judgments are not before me. However, it can be presumed that those questions had been raised before the courts dealing with the suit for specific performance originally or in appeal. Even if this question was not raised, the same would be deemed to have raised and decided against the judgment debtor. He cannot be permitted to raise these questions before the Executing Court. The Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. If this is the precise question on which the judgment debtor asked the Executing Court to make a reference , then the said prayer was also not having any merit. For the aforesaid reason, I find no merit in the revision petition and consequently dismiss the same. 22.11.2011 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE