1. In this appeal, while issuing notice for final disposal on 3.7.2017, this Court framed following substantial question of law:

In view of rejection of the objection raised below Exh.58, whether it was permissible for the objector to again raise a fresh objection under Exh.185?

2. This Second Appeal is admitted on the above quoted question of law and today I have heard counsel for the parties on the same.

3. The appellant herein, is the plaintiff, who had filed Regular Civil Suit No.2 of 2001, being a suit for specific performance against the respondent Nos.2 and 3, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the aforesaid suit. The said suit was decreed in favour of the appellant by judgment and order dated 4.4.2003 passed by the trial Court. The said decree had attained finality as it was never challenged. The appellant/ decree holder put the aforesaid decree to execution in the year 2004.

4. The respondent no.1 herein being an objector to the said decree filed her objection before the Executing Court being an application under Section 47 r/w Order XXI Rules 97, 99, 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), it was marked as Exh.58 and the same was filed in the year 2011. The said objector (respondent no.1 herein) claimed in her objection that she was a co-sharer of the property in question and that therefore, the respondent nos.2 and 3/defendants could not have executed the agreement in favour of the appellant, which ultimately led to the decree of specific performance being granted in his favour.

5. The said application/objection at Exh.58 was rejected by the Executing Court by its order dated 4.8.2011. In the said order, the Executing Court discussed the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent/objector on merits and rejected the same. It is an admitted position that the said order dated 4.8.2011 passed by the Executing Court below (Exh.58) was never challenged and that it attained finality.

6. It appears that thereafter, there were a series of objections to the execution of the decree filed on behalf of other objectors, which also stood rejected. After the passage of about 5 years from the rejection of her objection at Exh.58 by the Executing Court, the respondent no.1, on 10.6.2016 again filed an objection before the Executing Court in the form of application under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rules 97, 99 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was marked as Exh.185 before the Executing Court. In this objection, filed after about 5 years of the rejection of her earlier objection, the respondent no.1 raised similar contentions claiming that the decree could not be executed.

7. By order dated 22.6.2016, the Executing Court rejected the said objection at Exh.185 with costs. The Executing Court recorded the fact that the earlier objection at Exh.58 filed by respondent no.1 had been rejected on 4.8.2011 and it had attained finality and yet the respondent no.1 had again filed an objection after about 5 years raising similar contentions while objecting to the execution of the decree. The Court also took note of the fact that there were a series of objections filed on behalf of the other parties also and that for the same reason, the appellant/decree holder had failed to enjoy the fruits of the decree, which had been passed in his favour as far back as on 4.4.2003. The relevant portion of the order dated 22.6.2016 passed by the Executing Court on Exh.185 reads as follows:

“7. I have gone through the record. The present objector Chandrakalabai had filed objection as per Exhibit-58. I have gone through Exhibit-58. The said allegations have already been raised by the objector in the Exhibit-58. Further I have gone through the order dated 04-08-2011, the objection of the objector is rejected by the court. Further, the objector submitted that the subject property is a joint family property and therefore, she is having right in the subject property. I have gone through Exhibit-58. The said objection also raised in the Exhibit-58. The