Civil Revision No. 2234 of 2006 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2234 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.10.2009 Manjit Kaur ......petitioner Versus Charanjit Kaur @ Karamjit Kaur and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.G.S.Bhatia, Advocate. for the petitioner. None for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement dated 19.5.1993. Suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.10.2002. In pursuance of the said decree, the petitioner deposited the balance sale consideration and thereafter filed a petition for execution of the decree. Respondents-judgment debtors, however, filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The said appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur vide judgment and decree dated 28.10.2004. The petitioner executed a power of attorney in favour of Teja Singh to Civil Revision No. 2234 of 2006 (O&M) 2 prosecute the proceedings in the case. The said power of attorney was cancelled on 29.10.2004 and cancellation was written by Teja Singh himself, which has been reproduced in the grounds of revision petition and reads as under:- “Yesterday dated 28.10.2004, the appeals filed by Charanjit Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur in the Court of Shri Jaspal Singh Chugh, have been dismissed. As such, this power of attorney is being cancelled and the original power of attorney is being handed over to Manjit Kaur. After making this writing, I shall not perform any act or proceedings in pursuance to this power of attorney. I have received all the expenses incurred by me in this case and on appeal from Manjit Kaur. Execution or further proceedings will be prosecuted by Manjit Kaur herself. Dated 29.10.2004” However, the attorney holder despite cancellation of the attorney entered into a compromise with the judgment debtor and got the execution application dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed objections to the said alleged compromise and the statement of Teja Singh dated 24.1.2005. Vide the impugned order dated 1.4.2006, the said application was dismissed by the Executing Court. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Civil Revision No. 2234 of 2006 (O&M) 3 Executing Court had erred in taking the date of cancellation of the power of attorney as 9.2.2005, whereas, the same was cancelled on 29.10.2004. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner was under the impression that the issues would be framed in the objection petition and he would prove the original power of attorney executed by the petitioner in favour of Teja Singh as well as its cancellation. However, the execution petition was dismissed without framing any issue. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has shown the original power of attorney executed by the petitioner in favour of Teja Singh as well as its cancellation dated 29.10.2004. In these circumstances, the impugned order deserves to be set aside as the Executing Court has passed the order by taking the date of cancellation of the power of attorney executed by the petitioner in favour of Teja Singh as 9.2.2005. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Executing Court is directed to decide the objection application filed by the petitioner afresh in accordance with law. (SABINA) JUDGE October 29, 2009 anita