JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J.

1. This is a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 16.08.2016 (Annexure P-3), order dated 09.02.2017 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana as well as the order dated 19.04.2017 (Annexure P-10) passed by the trial Court vide which the objections filed by the petitioner dated 01.03.2017 (Annexure P-7) as well as the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC dated 15.03.2017 (Annexure P-8) has been dismissed by the trial Court.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed objections dated 01.03.2017 in the application for passing final decree, on the ground that police officials along with 10-12 persons had visited the shop in question which was in possession of the petitioner on 22.02.2017 and had taken possession from the petitioner after showing warrants of possession issued by the Court against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner was shocked since he had been in possession of the suit property as a tenant and had been illegally dispossessed. It is stated that in the said objections a prayer had been made that he be put into possession of the above said property. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner had filed another application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to be impleaded as a party in the proceedings instituted by respondents No.1 to 7 and that both the objections and the application had been dismissed vide order dated 19.04.2017, which order is illegal and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that the petitioner is also challenging the issuance of warrants of possession issued on 16.08.2016 and 09.02.2017 and that since the petitioner was never a party to the original proceedings, thus, the taking of possession of the suit property from the petitioner is illegal and the possession deserves to be restored to the petitioner and the objections filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 7:

3. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 7, on the other hand, has submitted that the possession of the property has been taken by the decree holders through Court after due process. It is submitted that respondents No.1 to 7 had filed a suit on 01.09.2000 for declaration that the plaintiffs were joint owners in possession of the suit property and for separate possession by way of partition by metes and bounds. It is stated that the preliminary decree was passed in the said suit on 11.12.2006 and the present petitioner has no right in the suit property. It is argued that the judgment debtors being dissatisfied with the same had filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16.10.2012 by the Additional District Judge and the Regular Second Appeal against the same was also dismissed on 03.12.2015. It is further argued that the judgment debtors had made every endeavour to delay the proceedings and had filed objections which were dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 16.08.2016 and thereafter the judgment debtors had filed Civil Revision No.2670 of 2017, which was dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 27.07.2023. It is submitted that after the dismissal in default of the objections of the judgment debtors, the present petitioner in collusion with the judgment debtors filed objections although he had no locus standi and had filed the same without there being any provision of law in the proceedings for application for final partition.

4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents has further highlighted that prior to the filing of the said objections dated 01.03.2017, the present petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction on 13.09.2016, the plaint of which has been annexed as Annexure P-9 along with t