JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 07.08.2018 (Annexure P-4), passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jawali, District Kangra, HP, vide which, objections filed by the petitioner/J.D. No. 4 stand dismissed. 2. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is prima facie not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same can neither be termed as a reasoned order nor the same is a speaking order. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents has supported the order by arguing that as there was no merit in the objections filed by the petitioner, the same stand rightly rejected by the learned Executing Court. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order as also the record of the case. 4. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that the objections of the petitioner have been rejected by the Court below by passing the following order:- “Consideration on objections heard. Record perused. In the present execution petition, appearing JDs has filed Objections that they have purchased share of the suit land from co-owners, due to which, they have now became co-sharers with the DH and has alleged that the DH is not entitled for actual possession of the suit land, however, Court found that the alleged claim of the JDs have not supported with any documentary evidence/record, due to which, the objections so raised by the JDs are not sustainable in the eyes of Law and accordingly, the objections filed by the Jds are dismissed. Let steps (If any) be taken within 15 days thereafter, Warrant of Possession be issued to the DC concerned and his report be called for 17-11- 2018.” 5. In my considered view, said order is as cryptic as it could have had been and therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The order does not spells out as to what were the objections raised by the petitioner and why the same did not find merit with the learned Executing Court. It is not sufficient for the Court to simply state that as the claim is not supported by any documentary evidence, therefore, the objections are not sustainable 6. The order does not spells out as to what were the objections raised by the petitioner and why the same did not find merit with the learned Executing Court. It is not sufficient for the Court to simply state that as the claim is not supported by any documentary evidence, therefore, the objections are not sustainable 6. The petitioner has raised objections that the judgment debtors were not properly served in the suit and thus decree was passed without affording them proper opportunity of being heard. Another objection raised was that as judgment debtors have purchased part of the suit land from co-owners, therefore, as they had become co-sharers with decree holder, therefore, the decree holder was not entitled for actual possession of the suit land. Record also demonstrates that these objections stand duly responded to by the decree holder. 7. This Court is not even remotely suggesting as to what order should have been passed by the learned Court on the objections. All that this Court is observing is that the respective contentions of the parties should have been referred to in the order, discussion should have been there on the objections so raised and thereafter, a reasoned order upon the objections should have been passed. As this has not been done by the learned Court below while passing the impugned order, the same is not sustainable in law. 8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 07.08.2018, passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jawali, District Kangra, HP, is set aside. Learned Executing Court is directed to hear the objections filed by the petitioner afresh and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties, pass a speaking order on the same, as expeditiously as possible. The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.