Objectors must be vigilant and cannot delay proceedings, as they may suffer the consequences.

Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

2. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, a suit No. 21/1977 filed by Panna Lal & others against Heera Ram & others for declaration and possession was decreed on 110.1984. According to the petitioner, the land is not falling within the boundary specified in the decree for which the decree for possession was passed by the trial Court.

3. On 112.2004, the Assistant Nazir of the executing Court, in pursuance of the directions of the executing Court, came to the petitioners house and put the locks on the main door. It is submitted that the petitioner was neither party in the original suit nor was made party in execution proceedings nor any application was moved by the decree holder to dispossess the petitioner from the property. When the house of the petitioner was locked, the petitioner submitted an application under Section 151 CPC narrating all facts and prayed that the petitioners property is not falling in the property specified in the decree-sheet and, therefore, Commissioner may be appointed to take measurement and to open lock forthwith. The executing Court appointed Commissioner to give report with respect to the property of the petitioner. The Commissioner submitted his report and according to the petitioner, by this report, it become clear that some part of the house of petitioner falls outside the land specified in the decree sheet. The trial Court after hearing arguments on the application under Section 151 CPC rejected the same on the ground that the petitioner should file appropriate proceedings and no relief can be granted under Section 151 CPC to the petitioner. This order was passed on 20.12.2004. On 11.2005, the executing Court passed the order directing the local administration, municipal authorities and police to assist for execution of possession warrant. The executing Court fixed the execution case on 22.2005.

4. In the above circumstances, the petitioner submitted an objection petition under Order 21 Rules 99 and 101 read with Section 151 CPC on 11.2005 before the executing Court. The petitioners objection petition was registered as Misc. Case No. 4/2005. The petitioner also submitted an application seeking stay of execution. This application appears to have been submitted on 21.2005 inspite of the fact that the objection petition was submitted as back as on 11.2005. It appears that on 28.1.2005, the petitioner requested the executing Court to pass interim order on the petitioners application for grant of stay. The executing Court observed that the petitioner made request on the date which has not been fixed in the case and no information/notice has been given to the decree holder. The Court observed that without hearing the decree-holder, no order can be passed. The Court further observed that the order will be passed after hearing both the parties and fixed the stay petition alongwith the main file on 22.2005.

5. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the executing Court when came to know that the petitioner is in possession and he was not party in execution petition and he is resisting the execution of the decree, then the executing Court should not have posted the matter to a date beyond the time by which the decree was to be executed.

.6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in view of the Judgment s of the Honble Supreme Court delivered in the cases of (1) Anwarbi vs. Pramod D.A. Joshi and others reported in (2000) 10 SCC 405 and (2) Brahmdeo Chaudhary vs. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and another reported in (1997) 3 SCC 694, the executing Court should have stayed the execution proceedings till the decision of the petitioners objection.

.7. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

8. It appears from the impugned order dated 28.1.2005 that the petitioner requested the executing Court to pass ad-interim order on a day when the case was not fixed for that purpose.