[322] Bholi Balvir Kau Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] where a dec by wife of J [2] possession was decre defendants vide judg preferred. T attained fi executed o herself to IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGAR CR-7359- Date of De Versus ir Kaur and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Mr. Sumer Singh Brar, Advoca for the petitioner. (Through V. Mr. Parvinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) The present revision petition e a decree-holder has been successfull ife of JD No.1 and mother of JD No.2 Respondent-plaintiff/decree-ho ession by way of specific performance decreed by the Court of First Instanc dants filed appeal. The First Appe judgment and decree dated 19.02 rred. The judgment and decree pass ed finality. In execution filed by uted on 18.10.2017. The present pet to be in possession of the suit pr OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH -2018 (O&M) of Decision : 28.10.2025 …Petitioner ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN dvocate gh V.C.) vocate etition reveals a sorry state of affai essfully deprived of the fruits of decre No.2 for last more than 11 years. holder filed a suit seekin mance qua the suit property. The sam nstance on 10.01.2012. The aggrieve Appellate Court dismissed the appe .02.2014. No further appeal wa e passed by the First Appellate Cou ed by the decree-holder, sale deed g nt petitioner filed objections, claimin suit property on 21.01.2017. Learned f affairs f decree seeking he same grieved appeal eal was e Court eed got laiming arned RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.11.04 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7359-2018 (O&M) -2- counsel for respondent No.1 has produced copy of the zimini orders passed by the Executing Court, showing that after filing objections, the objector remained unrepresented. The orders ranging from 27.11.2017 to 31.05.2018 read as under:- “Order dated 27.11.2017 None has appeared on behalf of the objector Bholi despite repeated cause of the case. Now to come up on 16.12.2017 for consideration on the application for providing police help. Order dated 15.12.2017 File be taken up today and I shall be proceeding on leave on 16.12.2017. Let the file be put up on 16.01.2018 for the purpose already fixed. Order dated 16.01.2018 None has appeared on behalf of the objector Bholi despite repeated cause of the case. Now to come up on 05.02.2018 for consideration on the application for providing police help. Order dated 05.02.2018 None has appeared on behalf of the objector Bholi despite repeated cause of the case. Now to come up on 07.03.2018 for consideration on the application for providing police help. Order dated 07.03.2018 Arguments not addressed. Adjournment requested, which is allowed. Now to come up on 28.03.2018 for consideration on the application for providing police help. Order dated 28.03.2018 Arguments not addressed. Adjournment requested, which is allowed. Now to come up on 30.04.2018 for consideration on the application for providing police help. Order dated 30.04.2018 Arguments not addressed. A date is requested, which is allowed. Now the case is adjourned to 07.05.2018 for consideration. Order dated 07.05.2018 Arguments not addressed. A date is requested, which is allowed. Now the case is adjourned to 17.05.2018 for consideration. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.11.04 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7359-2018 (O&M) -3- Order dated 17.05.2018 Arguments not addressed. A date is requested, which is allowed. Now the case is adjourned to 31.05.2018 for consideration. Order dated 31.05.2018 Arguments not addressed. Adjournment requested, which is allowed. Now the case is adjourned to 06.07.2018 for consideration.” [3] Keeping in view the indifferent attitude of the objector, the Executing Court proceeded with the execution and issued warrant of possession vide order dated 06.07.2018. The present revision petition is directed against the same. [4] Learned counsel for the petitioner-objector has raised a very innocuous prayer that the objections filed by the objector be decided prior to execution of warrant of possession. Though at the first blush, the prayer seems to be attractive but this Court finds that on the pretext of the same prayer, the petitioner has successfully scuttled the decree for last more than 07 years before this Court only. Bare perusal of the objections filed by the petitioner would reveal that the only objection raised is with respect to the objector being in possession of the suit property. Apart from being wife of defendant No.1 and mother of Defendant No.2, counsel for the objector has not been able to point out any independent right possessed by the objector to agitate against the decree. Once the owners of the property have suffered decree for possession by way of specific performance, this Court finds that there is no merit in the objections filed by the objector and the same need to be dismissed. [5] Dismissed accordingly. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.11.04 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7359-2018 (O&M) -4- [6] Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner-executant, she is saddled with a further costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to respondent No.1. [7] All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 28.10.2025 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.11.04 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document