PARAMJEET SINGH, J.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court commented on the plight of a decree holder in India and observed as under in Satyawati vs. Rajinder Singh and another 2013 (7) Scale 371.

“2. In relation to the difficulties faced by a decree holder in execution of the decree, in 1872, the Privy Council had observed that “......... the difficulties of a litigant in India

begin when he has obtained a Decree....”.

3. Even today, in 2013, the position has not been improved and still the decree holder faces the same problem which was being faced in the past. We are concerned with the case of the appellant-plaintiff who had succeeded in Civil Appeal No.89 of 1993 in the Court of District Judge, Faridabad on 19th January, 1996. Decree was drawn in pursuance of the aforestated judgment but till today, the appellant-plaintiff is not in a position to get

fruits of his success.”

In the present case, the plight of respondent no.1 (for convenience of reference hereinafter referred to as decree-holder) is even worse as he has been litigating since 1978 and undergoing the whirlwind of law in getting the fruits of ejectment order passed in 1985 by the Rent Controller which attained finality after number of rounds in this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, with the decision of Civil Revision No.3122 of 2007, between the decree holder and respondents no.2 and 3 (for convenience of reference hereinafter referred to as judgment debtors), by this Court vide order dated 25.04.2008.

Thereafter, the decree holder sought execution of judgment/order passed in the year 1985, but till date, the decree holder has not been able to take possession in spite of ejectment order in his favour.

Instant civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arising from the objections filed by the petitioners, who are third party (hereafter to be referred as objector) is for setting aside the order dated 18.03.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Amritsar whereby objections preferred by the

petitioners-objectors have been dismissed as well as against the order dated 25.05.2013 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar whereby the appeal preferred by the objectors has been dismissed.

The facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that decree holder-Purshottam Krishan filed ejectment petition against Jagdamba Tea Factory and Nand Kishore with regard to the property in dispute situated outside Ghee Mandi Gate, Bagh Raja Ralia Ram, Amritsar. The said petition was allowed by learned Rent Controller vide judgment dated 26.07.1985. Feeling aggrieved with the said order, respondents no.2 and 3-tenants filed appeal before learned Appellate Authority, Amritsar which was allowed vide order dated 02.05.1986 and the findings of learned Rent Controller were reversed. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 02.05.1986, respondent no.1 herein preferred Civil Revision No.2459 of 1986 which was partly allowed by this Court on 04.08.2004 and the case was remanded to learned lower Appellate Authority, Amritsar to record its findings on issue no.6. Special Leave Petition against the order dated 04.08.2004 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, learned Appellate Authority, Amritsar upheld the findings of learned Rent Controller on issue no.6 and directed ejectment of respondents no.2 and 3-tenants from the property in dispute. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned Appellate Authority, Amritsar, the tenants preferred Civil Revision No.3122 of 2007 in this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 25.04.2008.

Thus, the judgment dated 26.07.1985 passed by learned Rent Controller has attained finality. It would be pertinent to mention that earlier the parties had approached this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court in number of rounds of litigation during the last 30 years. For execution of the judgment dated 26.07.1985 passed by learned Rent Controller, respondent no.1 her