1. Heard Shri B.N. Mohata, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.N. Mohta learned counsel for the for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Perused the memo of writ petition and the documents filed along with it.

2. The petitioner is one of the legal heirs of deceased judgment debtor No.1 and the respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the original decree holders. Respondent No.5 is one of the representatives of the legal heirs of judgment debtor No.1 and the respondent No.6 is original judgment debtor No.2.

3. In the present case, there is a decree passed by the Civil Court on 11.09.2003 in Reg. Civil Suit No.107/2002, thereby decreeing the suit filed for eviction of the judgment debtors from the suit property. By this Judgment, the judgment debtors have been directed to vacate the suit property and deliver its vacant possession to the decree holders.

4. It appears that there was no compliance with the direction given in the judgment and therefore, the decree holders filed execution proceedings in the year 2005. Along with the application for execution of decree, copy of decree was also filed. However, the decree, though prepared by the trial court, was not signed by the presiding judge of the trial court, who decreed the suit, but that was not noticed nor objected to by anybody till recently.

5. The judgment debtors appeared in the execution proceedings and took objection to the execution of decree on different grounds, excluding the ground of non-signing of the decree. Those objections were repelled by the executing court and, therefore, they were carried in appeal/writ petition before this Court and it happened not once, but thrice. Recently, the petitioner along with some other legal heirs of deceased judgment debtor No.1, had filed Writ Petition No. 357/2016 taking objection that the suit was filed against two persons, Nazir Ahmed and Sheikh Jalil, but the Judgment dated 11.09.2003 disclosed that the suit was decreed against Nasir Ahmed (not Nazir Ahmed) and Sheikh Jalil and therefore, the decree was not executable. While upholding this objection and allowing the writ petition, this Court held that there was indeed such an error in the judgment and decree, but also found that such error may have occurred due to some typographical mistake. Therefore, this Court remanded the matter back to the executing court for its fresh consideration in the light of the observations made in the Judgment of this Court dated 5th May, 2016 rendered in Writ Petition No.357/2016. Accordingly, the clerical error was also removed. It is significant to note that at that time, this petitioner, though a party to the execution proceedings, did not take any objection regarding non-signing of the decree by the presiding officer of the court, who pronounced the judgment. Legal heirs of the original judgment debtors had also preferred one writ petition bearing No.525/2017 but on different grounds. It may be mentioned here that in this writ petition, no objection regarding non-signing of the decree by the learned judge was taken by them. The original judgment debtor No.1 too did not take any objection when he made his appearance before the executing court and that was way back in the year 2005 or so. He was alive till the year 2009 and no objection to the effect that decree was neither signed by the judge, who delivered the judgment nor signed by his successor, was taken at any point of time by him after his appearance before the executing court till his death in the year 2009.

6. Now, after having found that various objections taken to the execution proceedings at different points of time by the judgment debtors were all rejected not only by the executing court, but also by this court, the petitioner, one of the legal heirs of deceased judgment debtor No.1, digged out a new challenge, never taken before. He took an objection that the decree was in-executable, it being not signed by the judge, who passed the decree or his immediate successor. This objection was reject