C. R. No. 6273 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 6273 of 2009 Date of Decision : December 02, 2009 Jarnail Dass .... Petitioner Vs. Mahant Dayal Dass and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. B. S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Jarnail Dass has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 30.09.2009 passed by Executing Court i.e. learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moga (Annexure P-6) thereby dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner in the Execution Petition. In two civil suits i.e. Civil Suit No. 113 dated 08.04.1988 for declaration and Civil Suit No. 420 dated 19.12.1988 for permanent injunction, respondent no. 1 Mahant Dayal Dass was held to be validly appointed Mohtmim of Dharamshala Patti, Gajju, vide common judgment dated 06.04.1996. Thereafter, respondent no. 1 filed suit for possession against proforma respondents no. 2 to 6 (judgment debtors). During pendency of the said suit, respondents no. 2 to 6 put the petitioner into possession of the said property. The petitioner claims himself to be C. R. No. 6273 of 2009 2 Mohtmim of the Dharamshala appointed by Bhek (congregation). Civil suit filed by respondent no.1 against proforma respondents no.2 to 6 was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 16.10.1988. The said judgment and decree have attained finality. In execution proceedings, the petitioner filed objections alleging that the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 16.10.1988 were not binding on him since he was not party to the suit. The said objections were dismissed by the Executing Court as well as by the Appellate Court. During pendency of the same execution petition, the petitioner again filed objections alleging that he had filed a separate civil suit, which had been dismissed and his appeal against the same was pending and in appeal, interim stay has been granted restraining respondent no.1 from taking possession of the suit property except in due course of law. The said objections have been dismissed by the Executing Court by impugned order dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure P-6). Feeling aggrieved, the objector has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. The petitioner's sole claim is that he is validly appointed Mohtmim of Dharamshala. However, this claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Executing Court as well as Appellate Court, when the petitioner had earlier filed objections to the same effect. Consequently, the petitioner could not have raised the same objections again. On the other hand, since the judgment debtors put the petitioner in possession of the suit property during pendency of the suit filed by respondent no.1 decree-holder, therefore, the petitioner is also bound by the decree passed in the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner had filed C. R. No. 2043 of 2006 against dismissal of his earlier objections by the Executing Court and the Appellate Court and the said revision petition was disposed of vide order dated 17.04.2006. C. R. No. 6273 of 2009 3 However, this order, which has been heavily relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, also goes against the petitioner. It has been categorically held in the said order that the petitioner does not have a better right or title than that of respondents no.2 to 6 to retain possession of the property in dispute, unless otherwise established by him in his own suit. It was also observed that the Executing Court could not have gone behind the decree passed by the Civil Court and the objections raised by the petitioner having been duly considered by it within the scope and ambit of Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no case for interference by this Court is made out. In view of order dated 17.04.2006, respondent no.1-decree holder was entitled to take possession of the suit property in execution of decree dated 16.10.1988. The stay order granted in appeal preferred by the petitioner against dismissal of his suit does not come to the rescue of the petitioner because the said stay order was to the effect that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed except in due course of law. Respondent no.1- decree holder has taken possession of the suit property in due course of law i.e. in execution of the decree obtained by him from the Court. The petitioner has not yet established his right in civil suit filed by him. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Executing Court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The instant revision petition is completely misconceived and devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, nothing observed herein above shall have any bearing on the claim of the petitioner in the appeal preferred by him against dismissal of his own suit. December 02, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE