Hima Kohli, J.

1. The appellant (objector in Execution Petition No.126/2013) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 11.04.2014, passed by the Execution Court, whereunder his objections filed under Order XXI Rules 26, 58 and 99 read with Section 151 CPC, have been dismissed.

2. By the impugned order, the Executing Court has rejected the objection petition filed by the appellant/objector, who claims that he is the owner and in occupation of the premises No.RZ-26-P/66 on land measuring 200 square yards comprising in Khasra No.690/308, Indira Park, Palam Colony situated in village Nasirpur, New Delhi, and is facing imminent threat of forcible eviction by the respondent No.1/Decree Holder, who is seeking execution of a judgment and decree dated 27.09.2013 passed in Suit No.279/2012 instituted by her against her son, Lalit Toppo(respondent No.2/Judgment Debtor) for possession of House No.RZ-26-P/628, Gali No.41, Mangal Bazar, near Post Office, Indira Park, Palam Colony, New Delhi, measuring 200 square yards, comprised in Khasra No.628, village Nasirpur, New Delhi. 3. Mr. Ravi Gupta, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the respondent No.1/Decree Holder is trying to create some confusion as to the identity of the suit premises to the detriment of the appellant, who is apprehensive that the bailiff may end up taking over possession of his premises on the basis of mis-representations being made by the Decree Holder before the executing court that the suit property, and the property occupied by the appellant are one and the same which is not the correct position.

4. It is worth while to note that the appellant had purchased premises No.RZ-26-p/66 from Lalit Toppo(respondent No.2) through a set of documents executed on 10.9.2012. Learned counsel for the appellant claims that his client has no concern with the suit property, and instead of addressing the aforesaid aspect, in the impugned order, the trial court has gone into the issue of title of the appellant’s property and wrongly concluded that he is a pawn in the hands of the respondent No.2/Judgment Debtor. He argues that the appellant has no problem if the warrants of possession are issued and executed in respect of the suit property in satisfaction of the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2013, but the specification and description of the suit property should be such that it can be correctly identified by the bailiff.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has been requested to point out the site plan of the appellant’s property as filed by him alongwith his objections in the execution proceedings for the Court to verify the exact location of his property. He, however, states on instructions that the site plan was never filed with the objections. Instead, he contends that the bounding of the appellant’s property is entirely different from the bounding of the suit property. As per the information culled out from the sale documents filed by the appellant on record (Annexure-A), the bounding of the appellant’s property is as below:-

(a) North : Other’s plot

(b) South : 20 Feet Road

(c) West: Gali 8 Feet

(d) East: Other’s plot

6. Counsel for the appellant states on instructions from his client that the details of the plots situated on the North and on the East of the appellant’s plot are as under:-

Direction Name of Owner Plot No. Plot Size

North Mr. Rawat RZ-26-P/66-A 50 sq. yards

East Mr. Sharma running a General Merchant Shop - 100 sq. Yards

7. In the course of arguments, counsel for the appellant hands over a copy of the site plan of the suit property as filed by the respondent No.1/Decree Holder in the execution proceedings, which is confirmed by the other side as being the correct document. The same is taken on record.

8. As against the bounding of the appellant’s plot mentioned above, the bounding of the suit property, subject matter of the execution petition, is as below:-

(a) North: Other’s plot

(b) South : Other’s plot

(c) West: Gali 15 Feet

(d) East: Gali