JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J. 

1. This is a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned orders dated 22.07.2015 (Annexure P-5 and Annexure P-6) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala, whereby the Executing Court has dismissed the objections filed by the petitioners. Challenge is also to the order dated 22.07.2015 (Annexure P- 7) whereby the Executing Court has allowed the confirmation of sale in favour of respondent No.1-Charanjit Kaur.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case Jaswant Kaur, who is the mother of the petitioners as well as respondent No.1, had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,31,250/- on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 11.07.2000 and the said suit was decreed on 08.01.2005. It is submitted that the said Jaswant Kaur had died and respondent No.1 filed the execution application. It is argued that in the said execution application, the petitioners had filed objections which are annexed as Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-4. It is submitted that the primary objection taken in Annexure P-2 was to the effect that the Will dated 18.05.2002 propounded by respondent No.1 executed by Jaswant Kaur was forged and fabricated. It is further submitted that in the objections (Annexure P-4), it was stated that Charanjit Kaur had not obtained any succession certificate from any competent Court in her favour before filing the execution application and thus, had violated the provision of Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and since the petitioners were also the natural heirs of Jaswant Kaur, thus, the petitioners should also have been impleaded in the said execution proceedings and the benefit of the decree should be given to the petitioners to the extent of 5/6^th. It is submitted that, however, both the aforesaid objections have been dismissed vide two separate orders dated 22.07.2015 (Annexure P-5 and Annexure P-6) and both the said orders deserve to be set aside.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF CONTESTING RESPONDENT NO.1:

3. Learned counsel for contesting respondent No.1, on the other hand, has submitted that the present petitioners had filed Civil Suit No.100 on 24.12.2005 for declaration and permanent injunction against the present respondent No.1, in which one of the prayer was with respect to claiming amount to the extent of 5/6^th share in pursuance of the decree dated 08.01.2005. It is submitted that in the said suit challenge was made to the Will dated 18.05.2002 in favour of respondent No.1 and the said challenge was rejected vide judgment and decree dated 05.02.2010. It is submitted that the petitioners who were the plaintiffs therein, were not held entitled to declaration regarding receiving 5/6^th share of the amount decreed vide Ex.P3 dated 08.01.2005. It is further argued that the appeal against the said judgment has been dismissed by the First Appellate Court and the same has attained finality and thus, the petitioners have no locus standi to raise the objection that they should also be made a party in the execution proceedings, which are for executing the decree in favour of the mother of respondent No.1, of whom the respondent No.1 has been held to be the sole legal representative. It is submitted that the judgment of the Civil Court is binding on the Executing Court, more so, when the same is between the same parties. It is thus submitted that the impugned orders have been rightly passed and the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for contesting respondent No.1 and has perused the paper book and is of the opinion that the impugned orders are in accordance with law and deserve to be upheld and the present revision petition is meritless and deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter.

5. Jaswant Kaur had filed a Civil Suit No.51 of 14.02.2003 ag