JUDGMENT Mr. L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral) - CM No.28087-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. Main Case. 2. This is revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 13.02.2010 Annexure P- 2 passed by the Executing Court i.e learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa and judgment dated 29.05.2010 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa in appeal preferred against order Annexure P-2, thereby dismissing objections filed by petitioners and proforma respondent No.2 (objectors, who are sons of judgment debtor (JD)-Ganga Ram) in execution petition filed by respondent No.1-decree-holder Net Ram against JD-Ganga Ram. 3. Suit filed by respondent No.1 against Ganga Ram stands decreed for specific performance of the agreement to sell the suit property. Decree-holder-respondent No.1 filed execution petition for execution of the said decree. In the execution petition, JD-Ganga Ram filed objections. His sons i.e petitioners and proforma respondent No.2 also filed objections in the execution petition. In both sets of objections, it was alleged that in family partition among JD and his sons (objectors), the suit land had fallen to the share of the objectors vide family settlement dated 03.07.1996 and since then they are owners in possession of the suit land and, therefore, the decree is not executable. 4. The objections were resisted and controverted by the decree-holder. It was alleged that JD was absolute owner in possession of the suit land. The objectors were not recorded as owners or in possession of the suit land. The alleged family settlement is result of after thought to thwart the execution petition. The objector-Dhan Raj and the JD-Ganga Ram had previously sold some land to the plaintiffs through sale deed dated 07.04.2000 and also JD sold some land to one Smt. Suman vide registered sale deed dated 16.11.2007 and the said sale deed was attested by Objector Dhan Raj as witness. The objections are result of collusion between the JD and the objectors. Various other pleas were also raised. 5. Agreement to sell dated 10.03.2004 was allegedly executed by JD in favour of decree-holder. Suit filed by the decreeholder- respondent No.1 was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 23.05.2009 for specific performance of the agreement. 6. Learned Executing Court vide impugned order Annexure P-2 dismissed the objections filed by JD as well as the objections filed by the objectors. 5. Agreement to sell dated 10.03.2004 was allegedly executed by JD in favour of decree-holder. Suit filed by the decreeholder- respondent No.1 was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 23.05.2009 for specific performance of the agreement. 6. Learned Executing Court vide impugned order Annexure P-2 dismissed the objections filed by JD as well as the objections filed by the objectors. Only the objectors preferred appeal against the said order of the executing Court. The said appeal has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa vide impugned judgment Annexure P-1. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been preferred. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the objectors have independent right in the suit land and, therefore, objections are required to be adjudicated upon just like a separate suit. The contention although very attractive on first blush, is devoid of any merit. The objectors have relied on alleged family settlement dated 03.07.1996. However, original document has not been produced and only photostat copy thereof has been produced. The said document purports to be private resolution of JD bearing his thumb impression as well as thumb impression of a Member Panchayat. None of the objectors is party or signatory to the said document. Moreover objectors are none else, but real sons of the JD and such an ante dated document on a plain paper can be prepared at any time in order to defeat the rights of the decreeholder. In addition to it, the objectors had no pre-existing right in the suit land and, therefore, the suit land could be transferred to them only by way of registered deed. Even assuming the document to be family partition, it was required to be recorded in revenue record as per requirement of Section 123 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. However, admittedly the said family partition was not recorded in the revenue record for more than 13 years. It is also worth mentioning that no such plea relating to alleged family settlement or partition was raised by JD in his written statement in the suit. If there had been any such family partition, the defendant would have raised this plea in the written statement filed in the suit. 9. It is also worth mentioning that no such plea relating to alleged family settlement or partition was raised by JD in his written statement in the suit. If there had been any such family partition, the defendant would have raised this plea in the written statement filed in the suit. 9. Keeping in view all the aforesaid circumstances, it is manifest that the objections filed by petitioners and proforma respondent NO.2 in the execution petition are patently frivolous and untenable and the same have, therefore, been rightly dismissed by the Courts below. It was not necessary to go through the trial of the said objections by framing issues and recording evidence keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The objections have been preferred simply to defeat the decree and delay the execution thereof. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. Impugned orders of the Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. -----------0.K.B.0-----------