JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.: - Order dated 7.10.2011 (Annexure P-3) vide which objections preferred by the JDs in the course of execution proceedings of judgment and decree dated 3.9.2001, were dismissed, is under challenge in this petition. 2. It is of relevance to mention that the decree holder-bank had filed a suit on 22.12.1994, interalia, against the petitioner-JD for recovery of Rs.89,305/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 12.5% per annum with quarterly rests. The guarantors of the petitioner-JD were not parties before the court in the said suit which was decreed in favour of the bank on 3.9.2001. No appeal was preferred by the defendant-JD, petitioner herein. During the proceedings of the execution of the decree, the JDs took up a stand that they were never served in the suit and had no knowledge of proceedings therein earlier to 25.9.2011. Claiming the decree passed against them to be fraudulent and having been passed without an opportunity of being heard given to the JDs, it was claimed that the JDs had got a loan amount of Rs.45,000/- only from the DH-bank out of which Rs.43,000/- had been paid. It is claimed that it was also assured by the bank that the birds in the poultry farm will be insured and for that purpose, an amount of Rs.3,000/- had been deducted from the said loan amount. In short, it is claimed that after few months, the chickens had died due to illness and the JDs had lodged a claim with the National Insurance Company Limited from where assurance had been given to the JDs that the claim will be transferred to the plaintiff-bank. Claiming that the JDs were innocent, old persons, prayer for acceptance of the objection petition was made. 3. This objection petition was strongly contested by the Bank. In reply, so preferred, it was elaborately explained that the suit was filed long back and the decree was made on 3.9.2001. It is claimed that no payment had been made by the JDs. Prayer for dismissal of the objection petition with special costs was made. 4. The petitioner-JDs could not prove even prima-facie that they had made deposit of Rs.43,000/- with the decree-holder Bank. There is nothing to show that insurance of the chicken stock of the objectors had been promised by the bank. There is total absence of evidence or of supportive material from the JDs. 4. The petitioner-JDs could not prove even prima-facie that they had made deposit of Rs.43,000/- with the decree-holder Bank. There is nothing to show that insurance of the chicken stock of the objectors had been promised by the bank. There is total absence of evidence or of supportive material from the JDs. Observations made against the JDs by the Executing Court are of relevance and for ready reference are appended as below: “It is very much necessary to mention here that JDs have been playing foul play with the court. They have been residing in Jind but never appeared before court. Court with the help of SHO hardly and with great efforts procured the presence of JDs through bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.50,000/-. SHO was also given direction that disciplinary action would be taken against him in case he could not procure the presence of JDs. Thereafter, JD was produced through bailable warrants before court. Now pleas taken by JD keep no weightage. I find no substance in the objections filed by JDs, hence, same are dismissed being without any substance and weightage.” 5. When during hearing of this petition, the petitioner was called upon to produce any material or document to show that payment of Rs.43,000/- was made by them during execution of the decree and Rs.3,000/- were deducted by the DH-Bank on the plea that the amount was to be paid to the insurance company, no material or document could be produced on this count. When decree has not been satisfied by the JDs, order of dismissal of the objection petition and attachment of the property of the JD does not suffer either from any factual or legal error. 6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as discussed above, affirming the impugned order dated 7.10.2011 (Annexure P-3), this revision petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. 7. However, it is made clear that since it is very old mater, the Executing Court would complete adjudication of the execution petition within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————