IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2058 of 2007 Date of Decision : November 26, 2008 Ram Krishan .....Petitioner Versus Gulshan Rai and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 4 to 9. Mr. R.L.Gupta, Advocate for L.Rs of respondents No. 2 and 3. T.P.S. MANN, J. By a common order, the Court intends to dispose of the present revision and Civil Revisions No. 2059, 2060 and 2061 of 2007, as all of them arise out of impugned order dated 12.4.2007 passed by Additional District Judge, Faridkot, whereby the appeals filed by the respondents were accepted, order passed by the executing Court set aside and the executing Court directed to proceed with the execution proceedings by issuing warrants of possession in accordance with law. Respondents in all revisions had sought decrees for final partition, which were granted on 12.2.1990 and upheld by learned District Civil Revision No. 2058 of 2007 -2- Judge, Faridkot on 14.10.1994. In the execution, warrants of possession were issued. Petitioners in all the revision petitions filed their respective objections claiming that they entered into possession as tenants after passing of the final decree and, thus, not bound by the decree, as they were never a party. Accordingly, they objected to their dispossession from the properties in question. While opposing the objection petitions, the decree holders asserted that the objections were hit by the doctrine of lis pendence under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and filed by the objectors with the sole purpose of creating hurdles in the execution proceedings and delaying the same. The preliminary decree was passed way-back on 9.6.1967 and the final decree for possession was passed on 12.2.1990. The objectors were acting in collusion with the judgment debtors in order to delay the executing proceedings. Learned executing Court vide order dated October 31, 2005 stayed the execution of the warrants of possession till the decision of the objection petitions and adjourned the case for evidence of the objectors. The appeals filed by the decree holders were accepted by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot vide a common order dated April 12, 2007 and the executing Court directed to proceed with the execution proceedings by issuing warrants of possession in accordance with law. After relying upon Kulwant Rai v. Des Raj and others, 2002(2) Rent Law Reporter 381, Ram Sarup v. Chanan Singh Arjan Singh AIR 1964 Punjab 525, Jaswant Singh v. Ralla Singh, 2005(2) Punjab Law Reporter 681 and Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust and another AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1754, learned lower appellate Court Civil Revision No. 2058 of 2007 -3- held that the objectors had been inducted as tenants by co-owners during the pendency of the civil suit, which was finally decreed on 12.2.1990 and, therefore, they were bound by the decree passed in favour of the decree holders and had no right to resist the execution of the warrants of possession to be delivered to the decree holders. Learned counsel for the petitioners in all the petitions has objected to the passing of the impugned order by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot on the ground that the appeals filed by the respondents were not maintainable as they had been preferred under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') but the said provision refers to an order passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code by making it appealable and not an order passed by the lower Court during the execution proceedings. The plea submitted on behalf of the petitioners cannot be accepted. The learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot vide order dated 31.10.2005 stayed the execution till the decision of the objections. Such an order was passed apparently under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 or under Section 151 of the Code. Once, such an order was passed staying the execution, which amounted to staying the dispossession of the petitioners pending their objection petitions, the appeal under order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of the Code was competent. It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in the partition proceedings, the share in possession of the petitioners had fallen to the share of the other co-sharers and, therefore, they were entitled to protect Civil Revision No. 2058 of 2007 -4- their possession as tenants. No such finding had been given by the executing Court. What was held was that the objectors had come in possession of the suit property during the pendency of the civil suit. In view of the same, the objections filed by the petitioners have rightly been held to be not maintainable. It may not be out of place to mention here that one Pawan Kumar, who was also a tenant under one of the judgment debtors in another suit filed by Gulshan Rai, present respondent No. 9, and others also challenged an identical order by filing Civil Revision No. 5006 of 2007, which was argued on his behalf by learned counsel, who is now representing the present petitioners. The said revision came up for hearing before this Court and was dismissed on August 13, 2008. In view of the above, no case is made out for grant of any interference in the impugned orders. All the revisions are, accordingly, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) November 26, 2008 JUDGE satish