JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsels. 2. The objectors have filed the present revision petition against the order dated 22/1/2005 passed by the learned Executing Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hanumangarh in Execution Petition No. SBC Revision Petition No. 49/2005 2/99 (Baldev Singh v. Arora Education & Ors.) in which the present petitioners-objector, Ramesh Kumar & Ashok Kumar, both sons of late Shri Deshraj, raised the objection that in pursuance of decree dated 12/11/1998 in a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 54,150/-, the property of the present objectors could not be attached and put to auction by the Executing Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner - objectors, Mr. Kishan Bansal submitted that the petitioner had produced evidence in the form of water, electricity & telephone bills in their names of the property in question and, therefore, their property could not be attached in execution of a decree against Arora Education Society, of which their father was the Chairman and one Shri Jagdish Rai was the Secretary. He also submitted that the objection raised by other objectors, namely; Devi Lal and Krishna Devi had been allowed by the learned Executing Court in the same impugned order dated 22/1/2005 in respect of their property and, therefore, the objection raised by the present petitioners also deserves to be upheld. He drew the attention of the Court towards Section 8 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and submitted that primarily the Society/judgment debtor is to satisfy the decree of arrears of rent since the possession of the suit premises had already been handed over to the decree holder on 7/9/99. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Dron Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for the decree holder urged that the present petitioners had failed to lead any evidence before the learned Executing Court below to establish their title over the disputed property in question and, therefore, the learned court below was justified in rejecting their objections and directing attachment of the property in question belonging to their father - Deshraj, who was the chairman of the judgment debtor - Arora Education Society. 5. 5. Having heard the learned counsel and upon perusal of the impugned order dated 22/1/2005, this Court finds that the learned court below was justified in rejecting the objections of the present petitioners as merely on the basis of water, electricity or telephone bills it could not be said that the present petitioners had any title over the disputed property in question, whereas, upholding the other objections of Devi Lal and Krishna Devi, the court below has found that they have produced Patta in their favour, therefore, case of present petitioners was distinguishable from other set of objectors. The arrears of rent as a money decree could be recovered from the Chairman as well as Secretary of the said Society in question in the absence of property of the Society itself brought before the court below for execution of such money decree. However, since objections of present petitioners have been found to be untenable in the absence of any evidence, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 22/1/2005. 6. Accordingly, the revision petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******