- (1.) THE crux of the facts and material which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record are that, initially, the civil suit for a decree of possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 07.05.2002, instituted by respondent No.1 -plaintiff -decree holder -Bakshish Singh son of Dalip Singh (for brevity "the DH"), against respondent No.2 -defendant -judgment debtor -Bahadur Singh son of Teja Singh (for short "the JD") was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 05.06.2007 (Annexure P -1).
(2.) THEREAFTER , DH filed the execution petition to execute the decree (Annexure P -1) in which petitioner -objector Jaimal Singh son of Hardial Singh, filed third party objection petition (Annexure P -3). The trial Court dismissed his objection by virtue of impugned order dated 19.12.2013 (Annexure P -4).
(3.) AGGRIEVED thereby, the petitioner -objector (third party) has preferred the present revision petition, invoking the superintendence jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition.;