ORDER :

1. The present application has been filed for recalling of the judgment dated 01.12.2015 passed in S.B. Civil Execution Second Appeal No.27/1994.

2. The facts in brief are as under :

(i) In year 1974, a suit for eviction was filed by respondent No.1-Pushkarna Brahmin Bhimji Ka Mohalla Vikas Samiti (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Samiti’) against Damodar Das and Udai Kishan being the father and the son. In the said suit, an application under Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for impleadment was preferred on behalf of Asha Ram and Mool Raj, other sons of Damodar Das, with the submission that infact Damodar Das and Udai Kishan are not in possession of the property but it is they i.e. Asha Ram and Mool Raj who are in possession of the property. A submission was made that after marriage of Mool Raj in year 1975, because of some family disputes, Damodar Das and Udai Kishan separated from the family and starting living separately. Hence, the plaintiff, in collusion with Damodar Das and Udai Kishan has malafidely preferred the present suit without impleading them. In the said application, a plea of adverse possession was also raised by the applicants.

(ii) The application as preferred by the applicants was rejected vide order dated 17.07.1976 with an observation by the Court that no evidence of possession on the property by the applicants was placed on record and further that even if a decree for eviction would be passed in the present suit, the same would even otherwise not affect the applicants who claim themselves to be in independent possession.

(iii) A revision petition being S.B. Civil Revision No.393/1976 against the said order was preferred by the applicants which was disposed of vide order dated 26.10.1976 with the following observations :

“Heard learned counsel.

The grievance of the learned counsel is that while rejecting the application of the applicant for being impleaded as a party defendant in the suit, the learned trial Court has made certain observations which may affect the rights of the applicant in any subsequent proceedings. So far as the decision of the trial Court is concerned, that the rights of the applicant would not be affected by whatever decree may be passed in the present suit, there can hardly be any dispute. However, it is made clear that the observations made by the trial Court in respect of the rights of the applicant relating to the property in dispute shall not in any manner affect the rights of the applicant in any subsequent proceedings.

With these observations, the revision application is dismissed.”

(iv) Meanwhile, the suit as preferred by the Samiti was decreed ex parte vide judgment and decree dated 29.07.1976.

(v) An application under Order IX Rule 13, CPC was then preferred by defendant Damodar Das for recalling the ex parte decree dated 29.07.1976 on the ground that the summons in the suit were never served upon him. The application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC as preferred by Damodar Das was allowed and ex parte decree dated 29.07.1976 was set aside vide order dated 29.08.1981. As a consequence, the suit for eviction was restored and the trial of the same commenced again.

(vi) However, before the ex parte decree dated 29.07.1976 been set aside, the execution proceedings in pursuance to decree dated 29.07.1976 had already been initiated by the decree holder (Execution Case No.62/1977). In the said execution proceedings, when resistance was made by Asha Ram and Mool Raj and obstructions were raised by them in possession being obtained by the decree holder-Samiti, an application under Order XXI Rule 97, CPC was preferred by the decree holder. The applications dated 11.10.1977 & 14.10.1977 were also preferred for providing the police aid in getting the possession of the property.

(vii) The application under Order XXI Rule 97, CPC as preferred by the decree holder was rejected by the Executing Court vide order dated 09.12.1978 keeping into consideration, the order passed in the revisio