- (1.) THE crux of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, petitioner -plaintiff -decree holder Lakhwinder Kumar son of Madan Gopal (for brevity "the DH"), had instituted the civil suit, bearing No.25 of 7.1.2006 for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 6.3.2003 against respondent -defendantjudgment - debtor Gurdeep Singh son of Chand Singh (for short "the original JD"). Having completed all the codal formalities, the trial Court decreed the suit, vide judgment and decree dated 2.11.2006 (Annexure P1). Subsequently, the original JD had died.
(2.) DURING the pendency of execution petition, respondent Nos.5 and 6 Baljinder Kaur wife of and Gurdarshan Singh son of Devinder Singh filed the objection petition (Annexure P2) under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC for the release of their land in question, which was attached before judgment. The DH refuted their prayer, filed the reply (Annexure P3), stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the objection petition and prayed for its dismissal.
(3.) SEQUELLY , the executing Court accepted the objection petition (Annexure P2) filed by objectors -respondents No.5 and 6 and released their land attached before judgment, by means of impugned order dated 16.10.2009 (Annexure P5). Aggrieved thereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner -DH was dismissed as well, by the appellate Court, by way of impugned order dated 8.1.2014 (Annexure P6).;