JUDGMENT :

BIPIN GUPTA, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 22.05.2025, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nasirabad, District Ajmer, in Civil Execution Petition No. 12/2019, whereby the application filed by the judgment-debtors- respondents under Section 47 CPC, raising objections to the maintainability of the execution proceedings, came to be allowed, and as a consequence thereof, the execution petition filed by the decree-holder-petitioner was dismissed.

2. The controversy, in a narrow compass, arises out of a suit for permanent injunction instituted by deceased plaintiff Bodulal, predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner. The suit pertained to ancestral property comprised of Khasra No. 3217, admeasuring 14 Biswa and 10 Biswanshi, which, as per the revenue record, stood recorded in the names of the plaintiff’s father late Ramdev and proforma defendant’s father late Shravan. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff had been in continued possession of the said land and was using the same, inter alia, for storing animal fodder.

2.1 On 12.01.2001, the defendants allegedly entered upon the disputed land and started construction thereon, coupled with threats of forcible dispossession and alteration of the nature of the property. In these circumstances, the plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction on 17.01.2001 seeking protection of his possession.

2.2 In the suit proceedings, the defendants in their written statement controverted the claim and asserted that the property in question had been partitioned between late Ramdev and late Shravan long ago. It was further their case that the share of late Shravan had been purchased by one Shri Bhawarlal on 25.08.1934 and that the defendants, being successors-in-interest of the said Bhawarlal, had been in continuous possession of the disputed land for more than seven decades.

2.3 Upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 29.10.2015, decreed the suit for permanent injunction. The Court recorded a categorical finding that the plaintiff was in possession of the property in dispute. Consequently, a decree was drawn restraining defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 from creating any obstruction in the use and enjoyment of the suit property and from raising any construction or encroachment thereon.

3. Aggrieved thereby, defendant–respondent No. 2 Pappudi, preferred Civil Appeal No. 37/2018 (26/2015), before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nasirabad, Ajmer. The learned Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 21.12.2024, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2015. It was observed that the appellants had failed to substantiate their plea of continuous possession for 60–70 years. The Appellate Court further noted that no objection had been raised on the Commissioner’s report, which formed part of the record of the suit proceedings.

4. Thereafter, the defendants acted in defiance of the decree and attempted to encroach upon and raise construction over the disputed property, thereby disturbing plaintiff’s peaceful possession. The plaintiff, aggrieved by such actions of the defendants, filed an execution petition before the learned Trial Court alleging that the defendants-respondents had, in violation of the decree, taken unlawful possession of the property in dispute by employing force and that removal of encroachment and restoration of possession was warranted.

5. In the execution proceedings, the judgment-debtors filed objections under Section 47 CPC contending, inter alia, that the decree under execution was one of simpliciter injunction and did not contain any direction for delivery or restoration of possession to the decree-holder.

6. In reply thereto, the decree-holder-petitioner asserted that the decree dated 29.10.2015, clearly restrained the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and from raising constructio