The judgment emphasized the principles related to execution proceedings, the adjudication process under Order 21 Rule 97(2) of the Code, and the limitations on raising new pleas during execution proceedings.

Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral).

This revision petition is directed against judgment dated 23.6.2012, rendered by District Judge, Solan in Civil Appeal No. 42-NL/13 of 2011.

2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this writ petition are that the respondent has instituted a civil suit No. 16/1 of 1995/91 against the petitioners for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction or in the alternative for possession claiming herself to be heir of Ram Swaroop. The suit was contested by the petitioners that Ram Swaroop has executed a valid “will” in their favour. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 14.8.1997. Respondent filed an appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, Solan bearing appeal No. 34-NL/13 of 1997. Learned District Judge allowed the appeal on 19.8.1998. Petitioners preferred a Regular Second Appeal bearing No. 394 of 1998, before this Court against the judgment dated 19.8.1998. The same was dismissed by this Court on 22.12.2008. It is not disputed that no appeal was preferred against the judgment dated 22.12.2008 rendered in RSA No. 394/1998. Respondent filed an execution petition for the execution of the judgment and decree. Petitioners filed objections against the same. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) dismissed the objections and issued warrant of possession for 17.12.2011 vide order dated 17.11.2011. Petitioners filed an appeal against order dated 17.11.2011 before learned District Judge Solan vide civil appeal no. 42-NL/13 of 2011. He dismissed the same on 23.6.2012. Hence, the present petition.

3. Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Advocate, has vehemently argued that executing Court has not framed issues before dismissing the objections preferred under Order 21 Rules 97 and 98 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He then contended that the decree was vague and lacked material particulars. Description of the property has not been given. He has also contended that petitioner has redeemed the suit land from Ram Swaroop on 21.9.1967 and his clients have become mortgagee of Ram Swaroop. He has also contended that on 17.1.1964, Ram Swaroop took a sum of Rs.542/- as loan from one Sunder. He executed a pronote. A suit was filed by Sunder for decree of Rs.735.25 paise. Suit was decreed on 15.11.1967. In execution proceedings, petitioner with the consent and knowledge of Ram Swaroop paid a sum of Rs.935/-, i.e. decreetal amount with upto date interest.

4. Mr. Arvind Sharma has supported the judgment dated 23.6.2012 and order dated 17.11.2011.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings and judgment dated 23.6.2012 and order dated 17.11.2011.

6. Respondent has filed a Civil Suit No. 16/1 of 95/91 for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction or in the alternative for possession claiming herself to be heir of Ram Swaroop. Trial court has framed the following issues:

1. “Whether late Sh. Saroop was the owner in possession of the suit property, as alleged? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff is the only daughter of deceased Saroop, as alleged? OPP.

3. If issue No.1 and 2 are proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff has become owner in possession of the suit land, as alleged? OPP.

3. (a) Whether in the alternative the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of possession? OPP.

4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD.

5. Whether the deceased Saroop executed a legal and valid will dated 4.8.1973 in sound state of mind, as alleged? OPD.

6. Whether the suit land is coparcenary property of the defendant and deceased Saroop. If so, its effect? OPD.

7. Whether the defendant has become the owner of portion of the suit land as the same has not been redeemed by late Shri Saroop within stipulated period, as alleged? OPD.

8. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. If so, what is the correct valuation? OPD.

9. Relief.”

7. Learned trial Court has decided issu