V.B. Gupta, J.

Courts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgment debtor to deny the decree holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. These type of errors on the part of the judicial forums only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing law's delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system. (Ravinder Kaur v. Ashok Kumar, AIR 2004 SC 904)

2. Above observations made by Supreme Court are fully applicable in this case.

3. As per facts of the present case, in 1975 Sh.Sunder Singh, decree holder (respondent No. 1 herein) filed a suit for possession by way of mandatory injunction against Shri Murari Lal (since deceased). Decree holder claimed that he is owner of House No. 720-A situated in Ashok Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, which also included five shops. Out of which, shop No. 1 was rented to Shri Murari Lal at a monthly rent of Rs. 45/-. Shop No. 3 was lying vacant.

4. On or about 01.05.1975, Shri Murari Lal requested decree holder to allow him to store goods for a temporary period of ten days. After expiry of said period, Shri Murari Lal became unauthorized occupant of the said shop and refused to vacate the same.

5. It was claimed by Shri Murari Lal that he was a tenant in shop No. 3 at a monthly rent of Rs. 45/-. He further claimed that suit was bad for non joinder of necessary parties as possession of suit property was with M/s. Chand Colour mart, a partnership firm. He further alleged that it was an oral tenancy and decree holder failed to issue any rent receipt.

6. Trial court framed the following issues;

(1) Whether the defendant is unauthorized occupant of the suit property, if so, its effect?

(2) Whether the defendant is a tenant in respect of the suit property?

(3) Relief.

7. That suit was decreed in favour of decree holder, vide judgment dated 31st January, 1979, holding that Shri Murari Lal was an unauthorized occupant and not a tenant with respect to shop No. 3 in dispute. Sh. Murari Lal was also directed to hand over the vacant possession of the shop, within two months of passing of the decree.

8. The aforesaid findings of the trial court were upheld by this Court and also by Supreme Court.

9. Thereafter, second round of litigation started as Shri Dheeraj Ram (brother of deceased Murari Lal) filed objections under Order 21 Rule 97, 98 & 99 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short as `Code'). During pendency of the objections, objector died and his wife filed an application for being impleaded and after her death, daughter of late Sh. Dheeraj Ram (Ms. Avnish Malhotra) was brought on record.

10. Trial court after framing issues and after recording evidence, vide order dated 17th August, 2009, dismissed the objections with special damages of Rs. 3,000/-.

11. Aggrieved by the order of Civil Judge, legal heirs of deceased Shri Dheeraj Ram, filed an appeal which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Delhi on 4th March, 2010 with cost of Rs. 10,000/-. Costs as awarded by executing court as well as by the appellate court, have not yet been paid. Thus, second round of litigation came to an end on 4th March, 2010.

12. Now, third round of litigation has been started by Sh. Pawan Kumar Arora, (son of deceased Murari Lal-Judgment Debtor) by filing objections under Section 47 of the Code, which have been partly allowed by the executing court, vide its order dated 22nd April, 2010. All the legal heirs of Late Shri Murari Lal have been ordered to be impleaded as a party in place of deceased-Judgment Debtor. Amended memo of parties has also been filed and same was taken on record by the executing court. Ultimately, objections of present petitioner were dismissed by the executing court, vide order dated 5th July, 2010.

13. By way of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged order dated 5th July, 2010.

14. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that executing court has acted without jurisdiction and on this short ground