The executing court cannot re-evaluate settled issues or entertain objections based on the merits of the original case; it must execute the decree as it stands.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

1. These two Revision Petitions arising out of the same order passed in a Execution Petition, for involvement of common question of law and facts, are being decided together by this common judgment.

2. For convenience, status of parties is being referred as per their status in the Execution Petition.

3. Petitioner(s) have approached this Court invoking provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) to assail order dated 7.9.2015 passed by Executing Court, i.e. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, in Civil Execution Petition No. 13/10 of 2012, titled as Col. Sudhir Sewal and others Vs. Madan Kishore and others, whereby objections filed on behalf of Judgment Debtor No. 1 as well as Judgment Debtor Nos. 2 and 4, have been dismissed.

4. Execution Petition No. 13/10 of 2012 has been preferred by Decree Holder for execution of judgment dated 27.6.1997 passed by this High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 281 of 1988, titled as Col. Sudhir Sewal and others Vs. Madan Kishore and others, which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 2.9.2008 by dismissing the Civil Appeal No. 7179 of 2001, preferred on behalf of Judgment Debtors.

5. Civil Suit was filed by Jagdarshan Lal, who was predecessor-in-interest of present Decree Holder, against Madan Kishore, (defendant No.1) Jatia (defendant No. 2) and State Bank of India (defendant No. 3) seeking declaration that plaintiff was entitled for declaration with regard to possession of the suit property comprised in Khasra Nos. 102, 104 and 277 measuring 13-18 Bighas with prayer that defendants be directed to handover the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff because plaintiff was tenant and defendant No. 1 was in possession of the suit land as Imanat Dar, Izzatdar and/or Trustee and was liable to handover the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff.

6. Suit was contested by defendants on the ground that defendant No. 1 was in possession of the suit land as a tenant under the plaintiff and Patta was granted to him accordingly and in alternative defendant No. 1 had acquired title in suit property by way of adverse possession after the grant of Patta in his favour.

7. It is apt to record that defendant No. 1, after recording of entry as a sub-tenant in said land under the plaintiff, had obtained right of ownership in the suit property and he had sold some portion of the suit land to defendant No. 2 Jatia and had also mortgaged some portion of the suit land with defendant No. 3-Bank against financial assistance received by him from the Bank.

8. Defendant No. 2 had claimed bonafide purchase of the part of the suit land. Defendant No. 3 had claimed that creation of mortgage was legal and valid and Bank was entitled to recover the amount/loan from the owners of the suit land.

9. Suit of the plaintiff bearing Civil Suit No. 112/1 of 1979 Old No. 318/1 of 1984, titled as Jagdarshan Vs. Madan Kishore and others was dismissed by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.3.1985. In Civil Appeal, titled as Jagdarshan Vs. Madan Kishore, present petitioners/Decree Holders were brought on record for death of original plaintiff Jagdarshan during pendency of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Nahan vide judgment and decree dated 19.5.1988.

10. Appeal preferred by the Decree Holders before the High Court was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 17.6.1997 in following terms:-

“Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed. The judgments and decrees of the two Courts below are set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed, as prayed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.”

11. The memorandum of appeal and decree dated 27.6.1997 was drawn according to the judgment passed by learned Single Judge. Challenge laid to the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the High Court was rejected by the Supreme Court by dismissing the Civil Appeal No. 7179 of 2001, titled as Madan