IMPORTANT POINT
[The executing court must assess the locus standi of decree holders in light of subsequent property sales, ensuring that execution does not infringe upon the rights of third-party purchasers.]

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Godinho for the Applicants and Mr. Gaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1, 2. (a), 2(b) and 2(c).

2. The rest of the Respondents, though served, failed to appear and contest the present Revision. It is submitted that the parties whom Mr. Gaonkar represents are the only contesting parties in the present matter.

3. The Applicants/Decree Holders filed execution proceedings No. 3 of 2013 praying that possession of the suit property be handed over to them as per the decree which became final. Some of the Judgment Debtors i.e. Judgment Debtor Nos. 1, 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) filed objections to the execution of the decree on the ground that the Decree Holders do not have any locus to execute the decree due to subsequent events.

4. The learned Executing Court by considering the said objections, passed the impugned order dtd. 4/10/2017, thereby directing to conduct an inquiry. The operative part of the order of the Trial Court read thus:

"An inquiry shall be conducted to determine the following points: a) Whether the plots of land sold by the Decree Holders under the sale deeds dtd. 06/02/2009, 17/02/2009 and 16/02/2009 form a part of the property which is the subject matter of the Decree dtd. 27/06/2003 and delineated in Red on the plan annexed to the Decree ?

b) If point (a) is answered in the affirmative, whether the Decree Holders have locus to maintain the present execution application ? c) If point (a) is answered in the affirmative, whether the present application has become infructuous against the persons arrayed as Judgment Debtors in these proceedings ?

d) Whether the Judgment Debtors are still in possession of any portion of the property delineated in Red on the plan annexed to the Decree ?"

5. Learned Counsel Mr. Godinho appearing for the Applicants would submit that the Judgment Debtors do not have any right to challenge the execution since they are in illegal possession of the suit property and accordingly, they are only required to hand over the possession to the Decree Holders. He would submit that by directing an inquiry, the learned Trial Court is unnecessarily delaying the matter and by entertaining such objections, the Decree Holders are unable to enjoy the fruits of the decree. He submitted that the impugned order is perverse as the Judgment Debtors have no locus to challenge such decree. He submitted that the impugned order is illegal and beyond jurisdiction as by doing so and by ordering an inquiry, the Executing Court is trying to go behind the decree in order to re-open the issues that were decided between the parties by the judgment and decree.

6. Mr. Godinho relied on the following judgments:

(i) Lekh Raj (D) Thr. L.Rs. and Others Vs. Ranjit Singh and Others, 2018 ALL SCR 188;

(ii) Satyawati Vs. Rajinder Singh and Another, (2013) 9 SCC 491

(iii) Savitribai A. Salvi Vs. Suman Navgire and Others, 2009(5) Mh.L.J. 387

7. Mr. Gaonkar appearing for Respondent Nos. 1, 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) would submit that the impugned order is just and there is no illegality or any propriety in it, so as to interfere with it in the revisional jurisdiction. He would submit that subsequent to the decree, the Decree Holders sold the area of 83, 852 square metres which included the land for which the decree was passed for grant of possession. He submits that in view of the admitted facts, the Decree Holders are not having any locus to execute the decree since they lost the title over the said property. He submits that in fact, the purchasers ought to have filed execution by stepping into the shoes of the Decree Holders as they purchased the said property.

8. The rival contentions fall for determination.

9. Regular Civil Suit No. 136 of 2000 was filed for recovery of possession. By judgment and decree dtd. 27/6/2003, the Civil Court decreed the suit and directed Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 25 to hand over the possession of the property marked in red in the plan at Exhibit-PW.1/D.1, wit