Mr. K. Kannan, J.: (Oral) - Both the civil revisions are brought at the instance of the 3rd party objector whose objections to the executibility of the decree were rejected. The orders in challenge in both the civil revisions are the orders passed by the Executing Court, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon before whom a petition for execution of the decree already obtained was filed by the decree holder. The decree which in execution was passed on 10.06.2009 in Civil Suit No.112 instituted on 30.05.2009. The suit was filed by Tarun Raghava, the 1st respondent herein against the 2nd respondent, his brother Avdesh Kumar Raghava for a declaration to the effect that the defendant should be directed to correct the entries in revenue record on several items of properties measuring 7 kanals 6 marlas of land situate in village Bhondsi, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon. The suit was decreed on consent by the defendant.

2. The prayer in the execution petition would require to be reproduced for the ingenuity that the prayer possesses:-

“That the Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass the judgment and decree in favour of decree holder/plaintiff and the defendant/JD was ordered to correct the revenue record plaintiff has also supplied copy of judgment and decree to Halqa Patwari and Girdawar but they flatly refused to correct their revenue record as per judgment and decree. It is therefore, prayed that the revenue officials that are Halqa Girdawar and Patwari of Village Bhondsi, Tehsil Sohna, Distt. Gurgaon may kindly be directed to make the necessary corrections in revenue record, in the spirit of justice and decree alternatively. It is prayed that they may also be sent to civil imprisonment.”

3. In the guise of execution of decree against the defendant for correcting the entries, the decree holder was seeking for a direction to the Halqa Patwari and Girdawar that they should be directed to make the necessary corrections in the revenue record in the spirit of justice and decree and in the alternative, they should be sent to civil imprisonment. It can be noticed immediately that the plaintiff, who had obtained the decree directing the defendant to correct the revenue entry, was seeking for a prayer for arrest of the public official, if it was not so corrected. The objections had been filed both by the government officials viz., Tehsildar, Field Kanoogo and Halqa Patwari, on the one hand as well as the petitioner Subhash Singh Raghav who was a member of a cooperative society, who claimed that the property belonged to the society by virtue of the purchase and that the revenue entries cannot be corrected at the instance of a decree holder against a person, who is adversely affected when he was not even a party. Admittedly, the Society itself had not been made a party.

4. The objections raised were rejected by the Execution Judge holding that the revenue officials will uphold the Civil Court decree and since the Society itself had claimed that it had filed a civil suit, an application filed stating the objection under Order 21 Rule 97 was not maintainable. The decree holder quietly withdrew the execution petition on 06.08.2011, for, in the meanwhile, the decree holder, after serving a notice with threat of arrest, appears to have even secured a favourable correction in the revenue entries. The revisions are filed contending that the decrees are per se collusive and illegal and cannot be executed against the orders passed including the order recording the statement that the decree is satisfied.

5. On the contentions raised in the civil revisions that the Court was attempting to execute a decree for correction of revenue entry sought against a private individual as though he was a custodian of public record who could correct the entry, I had summoned the records from the Executing Court. The records have been brought before me for appropriate orders and I notice that at every stage in the proceedings before the learned Judge, there has been