Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - The petitioners have challenged order dated 14.3.2013 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), dismissing the objections filed by the petitioners/judgment-debtors under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’).

2. In brief, Smt. Ind Kaur w/o Sunder Singh (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) mortgaged with possession land measuring 3 bigha 8 biswa 16 biswansi to Badna and Bishna sons of Gulab Singh (predecessor-in- interest of the respondents) vide registered mortgage deed dated 21.5.1920 for a sum of Rs.950/- followed by a mutation. Respondents No.1 to 7/mortgagees filed suit for declaration that they have become the owners of the property in dispute due to efflux of time and also sought permanent injunction to restrain the mortgagers/petitioners from interfering in their peaceful possession. The suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 21.11.1981. The mortgagees again filed suit for declaration that they are owners of the land measuring 1 bigha 1 biswas 0 biswansi comprised in Khasra Nos. 369 and 370 on the ground that they have been dispossessed forcibly by the mortgagers/petitioners. The suit was dismissed on 23.1.1984 on the ground that it was barred by the principles of res judicata and as per provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 and Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC. The mortgagees filed appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 23.1.1984, which was partly allowed and the suit regarding possession of 1 bigha 9 biswa was decreed and the declaration of having become the owner by way of efflux of time was dismissed. The mortgagers challenged the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court dated 5.2.1986 by way of RSA No.1861 of 1986 whereas the mortgagees did not file any appeal against the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court insofar as the part of the suit regarding declaration that they have become the owners by efflux of time was declined.

3. The decree holders/petitioners in the aforesaid suit, filed an execution application on 13.5.1986 in which objections, filed under Section 47 of the CPC, on 13.10.1988 and another objection filed by the mortgagers, were dismissed on 27.10.1989. The petitioners filed third objection on 11.10.1990 to the effect that khasra numbers have been changed due to consolidation in the village and therefore, the possession may be given after due verification of the khasra numbers but the said objection was dismissed in default and the application for its restoration was also dismissed on 13.2.1992. However, Civil Revision No.1473 of 1992 filed by the mortgagers was disposed of on 14.12.1992 by this Court and allowed the petitioners/mortgagers to lead evidence and directed the Executing Court to fix mesne profits, which have already been deposited.

4. The mortgagers filed an application under Section 4 of the Redemption of Mortgages of Punjab Act, 1913 [for short ‘the Act’] before the Collector, Ludhiana which was dismissed on 29.6.1987. They filed suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 29.6.1987 is illegal but the same was dismissed on 30.8.1999 on the ground that limitation for redemption had expired. The appeal filed by the mortgagers was also dismissed on 28.2.2002, which has not been further challenged by the mortgagers by way of second appeal.

5. The mortgagers have now again filed objections on 14.1.2013 alleging that in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in “Ram Kishan and others Vs. Sheo Ram” [2008(1) Law Herald (P&H) 46 (FB)] : 2008(1) PLR 1, there is no limitation for redemption of usufructuary mortgage, therefore, the land may be allowed to be redeemed on the payment of mortgage money.

6. The objections have been dismissed by the trial Court, inter alia, on the ground that no such order could be passed on the objection filed under Section 47 of the CPC rather the objector should have filed a separate suit.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per Sec