R.P. Nagrath, J (ORAL);— The revision is directed against the judgment dated 01.06.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, affirming the order dated 23.03.2013 passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yamuna Nagar. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, no ground is made out to interfere in the concurrent findings of the lower Courts. It has been categorically observed that there was previous litigation before the Rent Controller in respect of the same property and the matter had come to this Court. In the said proceedings this Court directed the petitioner to appear before the executing Court on 11.02.2013 for giving undertaking to vacate the suit property upto 30.06.2013. It is admitted that the undertaking as directed by this Court was furnished before the executing Court on 11.02.2013. It is contended that under some wrong notion and under great stress that the said undertaking had to be given by the petitioner but on the basis of a family settlement, he is still the owner of half portion of the entire property for which the petitioner has also filed a title suit. I am of the considered view that the courts below rightly observed that by furnishing undertaking before the executing Court in the earlier litigation, under the direction of this Court, the petitioner would have no case for seeking injunction. In view of the above, there is absolutely no merit in the instant revision and the same is dismissed in limine.