Alok Singh, J.

1. Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 31.03.2010 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (Executing Court) whereby issuing the warrant of possession in respect of the room in question. The brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiffs decree holders filed Civil Suit No.673 of 1997 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri, seeking permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from interfering in the actual physical possession of the plaintiffs over the portion of the property bearing No. M.C.J. 1241 shown with letters ABCHEFGHI in the rough site plan attached with the plaint and also sought mandatory injunction directing defendant nos. 1 to 3 to reconstruct the forcibly demolished wall X-Y as shown in the site plan attached with the plaint. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was partly decreed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 01.04.2006. While decreeing the suit, the learned Trial Court has passed the following judgment:-

"In view of above discussion, the suit of the plaintiffs partly succeeds and is hereby decreed with no order as to cost to the effect that the defendants are restrained from interfering in the exclusive possession of the plaintiffs over southern portion of the property excluding dehleej, gate and court yard which is used jointly by the parties to the proceedings. Rest of the relief claimed by the plaintiffs is hereby declined Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to the record room, after due compliance."

Feeling aggrieved from the partial dismissal of the suit, appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs, which was also dismissed. However, defendants have not filed any appeal against the judgment and decree decreeing the suit partly in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs decree holders moved an application before the Executing Court under Order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C. especially stating therein as under:-

"6. That on 25.8.2008 the DHs and their family members have gone out of station to meet their relatives and in the absence of DH, the JDs no. 1 and 2 in utter violation of the orders passed by Honble Court have forcibly dispossessed the DH from the first room towards eastern side of point EF, which is part and parcel of the property marked by letter ABCDEFGHIL. Few articles of the plaintiffs/DH were lying in this room, but taking the advantage of the fact that DH is not at home, the JDs no.1 and 2 by taking forcible possession of that room have placed their articles therein. When on 28.8.08, the DH returned, he found the mischievous act of JDs no. 1 and 2. The matter was immediately reported to the police and thereafter panchayats were going on between the parties, but yesterday, the JDs no. 1 and 2 have flatly refused to restore the possession of DH over the room in question."

2. The judgment debtor - petitioner herein preferred objections against the execution application stating therein that room in question was in the possession of the defendants from the very inception and it was constructed by the defendants over the common court yard.

3. The learned Executing Court after hearing both the parties has made following observation in paragraph No.5 of the impugned order:-

"5. From the discussion above, it is clearly made out that southern portion of the residential house shown by letters ABCEDFGHLI has been held to be in possession of Decree Holder since long. Room in question is part and parcel of southern portion of the residential house. Thus, it is made out that decree holders were also in possession of the said room if that being so, plea of judgment debtors that they have been in possession of the said room since long even before institution of the suit is not acceptable.

Consequently, inevitable follows that decree holders were dispossessed by judgment debtors No.1 and 2 after passing of the decree. It has been held in Ranwari