IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.536/2010 RATNA R.N.ROY CHAUDHARY ..VS.. MRS. JOY LOBO WD E.A. LOBI & ORS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or judges Orders. CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE: 26 /11 / 2010 Heard Mrs. Khisti, the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellants are the objectors before the executing court. A decree of eviction and possession was passed in favour of the respondent no.1 to 4. While the warrant of possession was being executed, the appellants objected to the execution of the decree on the ground that they were in lawful possession of the suit property in the capacity as the legal heirs of the deceased R.N.Roy Chaudhary who was the original defendant/ judgment debtor in the suit. It was the case of the appellants that the decree passed against them in their absence was not binding on them In the reply to the objection, it was stated by the decree holder that the appellants were claiming a right through the original defendant Shri R.N. Roy Chaudhary being his legal heirs and therefore, they are not strangers to the decree and an independent right cannot be claimed by the appellants. It was stated in the reply that the decree was binding on the objectors and hence the application/ objection may be rejected. The trial and the first appellate court on a proper appreciation of the facts and relevant law dismissed the objection by summarily dealing with it. It was held by both the courts that it was not obligatory on the part of the courts to determine the questions raised by the objectors in this case, by a merely detailed enquiry because they had resisted the warrant of possession. The courts held that the courts were not liable to determine the questions which were not legally arising between the parties and which were not relevant for determining the lis between the same. Since according to both the courts, the executing court was obliged to decide only the questions which legally arise between the parties and were raised by the resistor, the objection in this case was liable to be dismissed. The courts held that merely because one of the legal heirs was left out, it would not be a ground to set aside the decree or to hold that the decree was not binding on the objectors. The courts rightly relied on the various decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Courts to hold that it was not necessary to have a detailed enquiry in this case as was contemplated by the, as the provisions of Order 21 objections as to the tenabilitywere to be first considered by the executing court. Since no substantial question of law arises for determination in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP.