VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

(ORAL)

1. Since the appellant in this case is the counsel who appears in this Court, considering the facts of the present case, at the outset, I put it to the counsel for the appellant who is appearing in person as to whether he wanted time to vacate the premises. The matter was passed over once. The matter was passed over again. The appellant states that he seeks to argue the appeal on merits. I have therefore heard the appellant on merits in this Execution Second Appeal (ESA).

2. This ESA impugns two orders of the Courts below i.e. of the first Court dated 2.7.2010 and of the appellate Court dated 6.3.2012 whereby the objections of the appellant, and who is the real brother of the defendant/Judgment Debtor have been dismissed. It may be relevant to state that the suit for possession which was filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff/Decree Holder went right upto the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 29.4.2005 held the respondent No.1 to be the owner of the suit property. The Supreme Court also held that father namly Sh. Bhagwan Das, of the Judgment Debtor and who is also the father of the present objector/appellant was not