CR No.910 of 2011 Bahadur Singh and another V/s Dev Raj and others Present: Mr.Ashwani Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. ***** The petitioners challenge an order dated 08.12.2010, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal, dismissing their objections against the execution of a judgment and decree dated 26.06.1986, passed by the Additional District Judge, Jind. The petitioners who are admittedly judgment debtors, filed objections under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming that Chanwa Ram, a co-sharer has leased out the land to them. The petitioners also claimed that they have become co-sharers by exchange of a part of the land. The objections have been dismissed. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The decree under execution, has attained finality on dismissal of the Regular Second Appeal. The plea that the land was leased out to the petitioners by Chanwa Ram, a co-sharer has been rejected on the ground that the land was declared surplus in the hands of Preet Mohinder Singh and vests in the State of Haryana by virtue of Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972. The entire story of the lease and the exchange appears to have been stage managed by the petitioners and the original land-owner so as to prevent CR No.910 of 2011 2- the execution of the decree passed more than 25 years ago. The land in dispute was allotted to the decree-holder after it was declared surplus. A suit for possession filed by the decree holder was initially dismissed but was eventually decreed in favour of the decree holder, by the appellate court. The petitioners are judgment debtors and have no right to file third party objections under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The objection that they have become co-sharers as they have purchased land from a co-sharer and exchanged land with a co-sharer disregards the fact that after declaration of surplus area the land vests in the State and was allotted to the decree holder. In the absence of any error in the exercise of jurisdiction, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Dismissed. 07.03.2011 [RAJIVE BHALLA] shamsher JUDGE