JUDGMENT

Raibir Sehrawat, J. (Oral) - The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 19.10.2019, whereby the Executing Court has dismissed the objections preferred by the petitioners/judgment debtors, in the execution proceedings, in which the decree holder/respondent No.l herein, claimed that he had been dispossessed after the decree and that the possession be restored to him.

2. While referring to the pleadings and the orders passed by the Court below, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the decree against the petitioners was only for injunction. Now, by misusing the decree, the respondent/decree holder cannot get the relief of possession. If at all, he wants to claim possession from the petitioners, he has to file a separate suit. So far as the execution of decree in the present case is concerned, the decree holder has not specified as to how and when the petitioners had dispossessed the decree holder of the suit property after passing of the decree. In view of this situation, the Executing Court could not have ordered restoration of possession to the decree holder. The counsel has relied upon the