JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

Petitioner herein was defendant No.17B/counter claimant in Civil Suit No.318 of 2009 titled 'Matu Ram and others Vs. Maha Singh and others', in which his counter-claim was decreed on 07.11.2011; whereas, the suit of the plaintiffs Matu Ram etc. was dismissed. Thus, for the purpose of his counter-claim, petitioner is the decree-holder. He is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 05.04.2019 (Annexure P7) passed by Id. Executing Court, whereby his application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for enforcement of the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2011 regarding his counter-claim, has been dismissed.

2.1 It is contended by Id. Senior counsel that suit of the plaintiffs (contesting respondents herein) seeking declaration and permanent injunction regarding the property in dispute was dismissed; whereas; the counter-claim filed by the petitioner/defendant No.17B was decreed on 07.11.2011. Ld. Senior counsel has drawn attention towards the copy of counter-claim (Annexure Pl), wherein it was specifically pleaded by defendant No.17B/petitioner that she is the owner in cultivating possession of the suit land. Relief was specifically claimed to the effect that plaintiffs and proforma defendants be restrained from illegally and forcibly occupying the suit land. The said counter-claim of defendant No.17B was decreed.

2.2 Ld. Senior counsel contends further that the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by Id. Additional District Judge, Bhiwani on 23.05.2014 (Annexure P3), wherein it was specifically observed that defendant No.17B/counter claimant is owner in possession of the property in dispute. Ld. counsel submits that though the Regular Second Appeal was filed by the plaintiff before this Court bearing RSA No.5664 of 2014, but it is still pending and no stay was granted therein.

2.3 As judgment debtors of the counter-claim i.e., plaintiffs made attempts to dispossess her (counter-claimant-Decree Holder), she was compelled to file an execution for enforcement of the decree passed in her counter-claim, which was allowed by the Executing Court vide order dated 10.09.2013 (Annexure P-4), specifically observing that decree holder/counter-claimant was in possession of the property in dispute and directing the JDs/plaintiffs to respect the enforcement of the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2011.

2.4 Ld. Senior counsel submits that taking advantage of the pendency of the Regular Second Appeal before this Court, the JDs/respondents/plaintiffs again tried to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner/decree-holder. It is alleged that 02.10.2017, the petitioner along with her husband, after harvesting the crops on the suit land, had gone to Delhi to meet their son and when she returned back from Delhi, she came to know that suit property had been illegally possessed by the JDs/respondents/plaintiffs along with the proforma defendants. Petitioner requested them many times to vacate the land, but in vain, which forced her to file fresh Execution Petition under Order 21 Rule 32 read with Section 151 CPC for enforcement of the decree passed in the counter-claim. Despite notice and appearance of the JDs before the Court so as to file objections, if any, and despite availing numerous opportunities, they did not file any objection to controvert the plea of the petitioner. However, the Executing Court dismissed the Execution Petition of the petitioner by way of the impugned order dated 05.04.2019.

3.1 Assailing the aforesaid order dated 05.04.2019, it is contended by Id. senior counsel that the order shows clear non-application of mind. The Execution Petition has been dismissed primarily on two grounds that no specific relief regarding permanent injunction had been granted to the petitioner/defendant No.17B/counter-claimant in the suit culminating in the decree dated 07.11.2011 and secondly that the petitioner could have filed fresh suit for possession.

3.2 Ld. Senior counsel contends that in the co