Civil Revision No.791 of 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 08, 2008 Bahadar Singh and others .....Petitioners VERSUS Piara Singh Johal and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Jagdish Rai Mittal, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The objections filed by the petitioner-judgment debtors in the execution proceedings have been rejected. The petitioners have accordingly impugned the said order by filing the present revision petition. The petitioner-Judgment-debtors filed objections saying that the decree holders were accorded relief qua possession by the first Appellate Court by reversing the finding of the trial Court. The Regular Second Appeal was preferred against the same wherein it is held that the judgments debtors have not been able to establish their title by way of adverse possession as an entry was reflected in their Civil Revision No.791 of 2008 :{ 2 }: names in the year 1981-82 for the first time. Reference is then made to some observations which are to the effect that tenant if objects to the claim of rightful owner by presenting a plea on the basis of adverse possession and if the statutory period is reckoned qua possession then the title can be protected as the title of the owner who is otherwise recorded in the revenue record would stand extinguished. It is urged that the possession can not be taken from a person who seeks relief on the basis of adverse possession. In support of his contention, the petitioners have relied upon the case of Inder Dass Vs. State of Himahcal Pradesh, 1995 (1) SLJ 699. This plea made in the objection petition is stoutly opposed by the decree holders. It is further urged that the ratio of law in the judgment relied upon by the petitioners would not be applicable to the facts in this case as the lis in this case has been finally adjudicated by this Court and no Special Leave Petition is preferred against the same. It is rightly urged on behalf of the decree holders that execution Court can not go behind the decree and once the plea of the objectors on the basis of adverse possession was not accepted in a Regular Second Appeal, they can not be allowed to re-open the lis during the execution proceedings. It is further urged that doctrine of resjudi-cata would also be attracted even at the execution stage. It is clear that the petitioners are making an attempt to re- open the issue, which has been adjudicated and decided by this Court in a Regular Second Appeal. Through its judgment dated 4.7.2005, this Court, by reversing the finding of the first Appellate Court, has rejected the plea of the petitioner-judgment debtors Civil Revision No.791 of 2008 :{ 3 }: (objectors) that they had become owners by way of adverse possession. The relief of possession stands granted to the decree holders. The Executing Court has rightly referred to and relied upon the well settled position of law, which is to the effect that executing Court can not go behind the decree and is only to execute the same in terms of the judgment and the decree. The lis in this case has been decided by this Court and the plea of the petitioners (objectors) qua adverse possession already stand adjudicated and the same has not been accepted. The cases relied upon on behalf of the petitioners were rightly distinguished by the Executing Court by observing that the lis in those cases had not been finally adjudicated and was pending. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the preset petition and would dismiss the same in limine. February 08 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE