The court established that objections to execution based on prior claims are barred by res-judicata, and the executing court cannot entertain repetitive claims without new evidence.

JUDGMENT

1. This Civil Execution Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant-objector (for short, 'the objector') against the judgment dated 15.10.2016 passed by Addl. District Judge No.1, Ajmer (for short, 'the Appellate Court') in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 10/2015 (130/2015), whereby the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated 29.9.2015 passed by Civil Judge City (West) Ajmer (for short, 'the executing court') dismissing the objection filed by the objector under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC with a cost of Rs. 3000/-.

2. Facts of the case are that Dargah Committee filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent against Ram Niwas Singhal and others, wherein Ram Niwas Singhal was stated to be the original tenant and Hanuman Singh Rawat as his sub-tenant. The said suit was decreed on 7.9.1982. Aggrieved thereby, Ram Niwas Singhal filed a Civil Regular Appeal No. 144/85 (179/82) before the Appellate Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 17.7.2004. Being aggrieved, two S.B. Civil Second Appeal Nos. 452/2004 and 418/2004 came to be filed by wife and sons of Hanuman Singh Rawat (including the father of the objector) and son of Ram Niwas Singhal respectively, which were dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.5.2005. Thereafter sons of Hanuman Singh Rawat filed objections under Section 47 readwith Section 151 CPC, which were dismissed by the Executing Court vide its order dated 18.5.2007. Subsequently, daughters of sub-tenant Hanuman Singh Rawat filed objections under Order 21 Rule 97 readwith Section 47 CPC, which was dismissed by the Executing Court vide its order dated 18.5.2007, against which Civil Execution First Appeal No. 46/2007 came to be filed, which was dismissed vide order dated 21.7.2008. Being aggrieved by the same, S.B. Civil Execution Second Appeal No. 4/2008 was filed, which was also dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.9.2008. Thereafter legal representatives of sub-tenant Hanuman Singh Rawat filed objections under Order 21 Rule 23 readwith Section 47 and 151 CPC, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 28.11.2008, against which S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 159/2008 was filed, which was also dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.12.2008. Thereafter, the objections under Section 47 readwith Section 151 CPC were filed by the legal representatives of Hanuman Singh Rawat, which came to be dismissed by the Executing Court vide its order dated 11.7.2014. The legal representatives of the Hanuman Singh Rawat also filed an application under Section 151 CPC, which was also dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated 26.4.2014, against which S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5525/2014 was filed, which was dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.5.2014. Now the objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC have been filed by the grand son (objector) of the sub-tenant Hanuman Singh Rawat before the Executing Court mainly on the ground that he is in possession of shop no. 37 at Station Road, Ajmer since the year 1976 in which he is running the business in the name and style of 'Ganpati Kisan Agro Service'. It was also averred that the objector was doing business in the said shop during the life time of his father and after his death, the objector is doing the said business. The decree holder is not entitled to get possession of shop no. 37 pursuant to the eviction decree, which was passed in Suit No. 224/1972 in relation to shop Nos. 38 and 39 only. The objector who is in possession of shop no. 37 is not bound by the decree dated 7.9.1982 passed in Civil Suit No. 224/1972, nor he can be evicted from said Shop. Therefore, the objector be not evicted from the shop no. 37 on the basis of decree dated 7.9.1982 passed in Suit No. 224/1972.

3. The decree holder filed reply to the said objections, wherein it was averred that the objections filed by the objector are barred by the principle of res-jud