Civil Revision No.126 of 2008 : 1 : ***** Gobind Ram Vs. Mandir Thakur Dwara & another Present: Mr.Pardeep Rajput, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Aggrieved against the order dated 3.9.2007 passed by executing court dismissing the third party objections filed by the petitioner and issuing warrant of possession, the petitioner has filed this revision petition. As averred in the petition, the property in dispute is a religious and charitable property of Lala Paida Mal and fore-father of the petitioner, i.e., Chatarbhuj Sharma, who was appointed as Priest and Manager of the said property. It is further averred that the petitioner is in this property for the last more than 70 years. Respondent No.1, i.e., Mandir Thakar Dwara & Shivala Trust is alleged to have filed an ejectment application without having any right, title or interest in the property, which is allegedly with an aim to grab the same. It is claimed that respondent No.1 is neither owner nor landlord of the property and respondent No.2 is neither tenant nor in possession of the trust property. As per the allegations, respondent No.2/Judgment debtor intentionally did not appear and ex-parte order of ejectment was got by respondent No.1-decree holder and thereafter the decree-holder filed an execution application. When the petitioner came to know of the fact that warrant of possession has been issued, he filed objections, which were dismissed by the court on 3.9.2007. Now the warrant of Civil Revision No.126 of 2008 : 2 : possession has also been issued for 7.2.2008 and accordingly the present revision petition is filed. The grounds raised to impugn the order under challenge mainly is that the petitioner-objector is in actual possession of the suit property and was not made as a party in the ejectment application. The petitioner has placed on record the relevant documents to show his possession over the property, but the court without framing any issue and without considering the documents, dismissed the objections vide order dated 3.9.2007, which is liable to be set-aside. It is further submitted that ejectment order dated 7.4.2003 is an ex-parte order, which is as a result of fraud and misrepresentation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly submitted that the executing court was required to decide the objections even though the petitioner was a third party and could not have dismissed the application as has been done. In support of his submission, the counsel has relied upon the case of Lachmi Devi v. Gurcharan Singh, 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 716. No doubt, in this case, this court while relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Shree Nath v. Rajesh, AIR 1998 SC 1827 has held that executing court can go into the objections raised by a person, who may not even be a party to the decree while dealing with an application under Order 21 Rule 97, but still in my view, the impugned order would not call for any interference on this ground alone. It is seen that the application for ejectment was instituted on 30.5.2002 and was decided on 7.4.2003. The petitioner had filed objections to the execution proceedings on 29.1.2003, which have Civil Revision No.126 of 2008 : 3 : been now rejected vide the impugned order. It is noticed by the executing court that the objector has not brought any documentary evidence in support of his stand. It is also noticed that the objector has a remedy to file a civil suit in terms of the stand taken and that the present application has only been filed to cause delay in the execution of the order dated 7.11.2003. It is further observed that the stand of the objector does not warrant framing of any issue on the basis of the pleadings so made, especially in view of the documents that are available on record. Accordingly, the objection application has been dismissed. In a way, the executing court has viewed that no triable issues have been raised by the objector, which was required to be gone into by the executing court by framing issues. The objector is found to have not filed the application with clean hands and he is also seen abusing the process of the court. As was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shree Nath's case (supra) in interpreting any procedural law, where more than one interpretation is possible, the one which curtails the procedure without eluding the justice is to be adopted. The procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be allowed. Despite passage of considerable period since 2003, the decree- holder has not been able to get the possession of the property. Accordingly, I am of the view that no such infirmity is noticed in the impugned order, which may call for any interference in the present revision petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. January 10, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE Civil Revision No.126 of 2008 : 4 :