Civil Revision No.5227 of 2011(O&M) #1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5227 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:-29.08.2011 Raj Pal & Anr. ......Petitioners. Versus Gur Dutt & Ors. ......Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the Petitioners. *** JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL) Two petitioners/decree holders have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the order dated 19.01.2011(P-6)passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Faridabad whereby their execution application Under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC seeking possession was dismissed. Facts necessary for the disposal of the instant petition are that suit for declaration and injunction filed by the respondents alleging themselves to be owner in possession of a house shown as ADBGFHIJKL situated in Mohalla Mata Ka Chowk, Village Ajronda, Faridabad was dismissed by Civil Judge(Junior Division), Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 29.04.2003. Against the said judgment respondents filed appeal before the District Judge which was partly accepted by the Court and Civil Revision No.5227 of 2011(O&M) #2# vide judgment and decree dated 05.03.2004 decree of joint user was passed. It is stated that the plaintiffs did not remove the encroachments made by them during the pendency of the suit and petitioner Budh Singh approached the Executing Court by filing execution application Under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. It is further stated that respondents made statement in the said execution that they will not interfere in the user of common property. Thereafter said execution application was withdrawn. Thereafter plaintiff/petitioner-Budh along with others filed second execution application on 19.08.2005 whereto respondents filed objections. Learned Executing Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the said execution application vide impugned order dated 19.01.2011 by holding that the decree in question is not a decree regarding possession but it was a simple decree of declaration. Hence the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that learned Executing Court has not appreciated the facts of the case properly while dismissing their application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. It is further submitted that learned Executing Court has erred in holding that the decree dated 05.03.2004(P-2) was a simple decree for declaration. It is further submitted that the impugned order is a non speaking order and passed without appreciating the facts of the case. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioners and going through the record, I find no illegality in the order dated 19.01.2011 passed by the learned Executing Court dismissing the execution petition filed by the petitioners under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. It has been held by the Learned Executing Court that the Budh Singh son of Sh. Hoti alleged decree holder has already died and persons pursuing the execution application were Civil Revision No.5227 of 2011(O&M) #3# not the decree holders at all because there is no decree passed in their favour and have no locus standi or entitled to move this execution petition. Further the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was partly decreed wherein deceased Budh Singh was only a party and petitioners herein were not party. It is further clear that in the title of the suit i.e. attested copy of amended title in suit Ex.PW-4/1 and true copy of judgment & decree dated 05.03.2004 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad the names of the petitioners finds nowhere mention therein as parties. In my considered view, the learned Executing Court has not committed any error or illegality in passing order dated 19.01.2011 thereby dismissing the execution petition filed by the petitioners under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC and hence I find no ground to allow the present petition. Dismissed. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE August 29, 2011 Vinay