IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 229 of 2008 Date of Decision : June 1, 2009 Lakhvir Singh & Ors. …Petitioners. Versus: Jai Kumar …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioners: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondent. Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advocate Sanjay Karol, Judge. The petitioners have assailed the impugned order dated 9.5.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No.II, Mandi, H.P. in case titled as Jai Kumar v. Lakhvir Singh & Ors., whereby petitioners’ objections filed in the execution petition No. 2-X/03 stand dismissed. The first objection, as has been held by the Court below stands settled in view of the decision rendered by this Court in RSA No. 99/1999 decided on 16.3.2000. There is no dispute about the same. The other objection is with regard to the non- impleadment of the other co-owners in the proceedings interse between the parties. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 The plaintiff’s suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 28.4.1992 whereby the present petitioners were directed to hand over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. The defendant did not take any objections with regard to the land being in joint ownership and non-impleadment of other co-owners as party to the suit. Therefore at the stage of execution, in the objection petition no such plea can be allowed to be taken. That apart non-impleadment of other co-owners in no manner prejudices the right of the J.D./present petitioners. Inter se dispute between the co-owners is not the subject matter of adjudication in the present proceedings, which in any event can be settled by them in independent proceedings. The Court below has rightly held that petitioners have got no right to object to the execution of the decree on the ground of non-impleadment of co-owners to the execution proceedings. Admittedly the present respondent has a decree in his favour and as such is entitled for the possession of the suit property from the present petitioners/J.D. There is no illegality, perversity or irregularity in the impugned order. Hence, the present petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. The dismissal of the present petition would in no manner effect the right of other co-owners. CMP No.615/2008 In view of the dismissal of the main matter, this 3 application stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. June 1, 2009. (rana)