Civil Revision No.3706 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3706 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: June 1, 2011 Joga Singh and others .....Petitioners v. Ramesh Kumar and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.R.S.Tacoria, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.14612-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.3706 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `the Code') for setting aside order dated 23.5.2011 passed by learned Executing Court, vide which warrants of possession were ordered to be issued. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Executing Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for possession was decreed in favour of respondent no.1-plaintiff by learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 5.2.1993. Appeal filed against the same by respondent-defendant was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, and even regular second appeal filed Civil Revision No.3706 of 2011(O&M) -2- against the said judgment was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22.3.1995. However, the decree has not been executed so far. The present petitioners are subsequent vendees, after passing of the decree. Perusal of the impugned order shows that original judgment debtor- Karnail Singh, already filed objections, which were dismissed by learned Executing Court. He filed appeal against the dismissal of said objections, which is still pending and it seems that no stay has been granted to judgment debtor by the appellate Court. On the same grounds the present objections have been filed by present petitioners, who are subsequent vendees, though in the shape of correction in the warrants of possession. However, they being subsequent vendees are having no right to resist or obstruct the execution of decree for possession of the suit property, as provided under Order XXI Rule 102 of the Code, which reads as under:- “102.Rules not applicable to transferee pendente lite.- Nothing in rules 98 and 100 shall apply to resistance or obstruction in execution of a decree for the possession of immovable property by a person to whom the judgment-debtor has transferred the property after the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed or to the dispossession of any such person. Explanation.-In this rule, “transfer” includes a transfer by operation of law.” Learned Executing Court has dismissed the application for correction filed by present petitioners by observing that they are having no locus standi to challenge the boundaries mentioned in the warrants of possession and boundaries in the warrants of possession have been Civil Revision No.3706 of 2011(O&M) -3- mentioned absolutely in consonance with the decree passed in favour of the decree holder. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Executing Court in passing the impugned order or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 1.6.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge