JUDGMENT : 

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the Executing Court dismissing their objections, as contained in Annexure P-8 dated 04.11.2024. It is prayed that the entire execution proceedings be declared vitiated and be set-aside.

2. The respondents–plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession as owners of the suit property along with a prayer for permanent injunction against the petitioners–defendants. The said suit, after due contest, was decreed by the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), S.A.S. Nagar, vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.2024. The operative part of the judgment and decree is reproduced hereinbelow:

“27. In view of my aforesaid findings, suit of the plaintiffs succeeds and same is hereby partly decreed with costs. Defendants are directed to vacate suit property, as described in the head note of the plaint within three months from today and to hand over vacant possession of the same to the plaintiffs within two months. Defendants are restrained from transferring the suit property. Suit of the plaintiff qua other reliefs is hereby dismissed.

Decree Sheet be prepared. File be consigned to Record Room after due compilation.”

3. It is also not in dispute that against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2024, the petitioners–defendants had preferred a civil appeal bearing Civil Appeal No. 130 of 2024. Vide order dated 11.02.2025 (Annexure P-2), after hearing the respondents–plaintiffs, the learned First Appellate Court was pleased to stay the execution of the warrant of possession. However, as the appeal was not being argued by the appellants (present petitioners), vide order dated 06.10.2025, the stay granted on 11.02.2025 was vacated after recording the detailed conduct of the appellants, noting that they were adopting dilatory tactics to delay the hearing of the appeal.

4. It is worth mentioning that during the pendency of the stay application and prior to the grant of stay in favour of the present petitioners– defendants, an execution petition was filed. In said execution petition preferred by respondents, the petitioners–defendants had preferred objections dated 04.11.2024, which was duly heard and decided vide order dated 11.12.2024. It was held therein that since no stay had been granted by the Appellate Court, the execution proceedings had to continue.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the execution proceedings on the following grounds:—

(i) That as per the impugned judgment and decree, three months’ time was granted to surrender possession; however, the execution petition was filed and warrants of possession were issued prior to the expiry of the said period, thereby vitiating the execution proceedings. That the execution petition is not maintainable, having been filed prior to the expiry of the time granted by the learned Court of first instance for delivery of possession.

(ii) That the objections dated 04.11.2024 were not properly adjudicated by the Executing Court.

(iii) That the execution proceedings are in violation of the provisions of Section 60(1) (ccc) CPC, as the property in possession of the petitioners is a single residential house.

(iv) That the provisions contained in Volume I, Chapter 12, Parts E and G of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders have been violated, as notices were not issued to all the co-sharers.

(v) That reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ratan Bapu Patil (dead) through LRs and others v. Dodhu and others, AIR 2005 SC 1500, to contend that execution proceedings for possession after one year are barred under Article 134 of the Limitation Act.

6. On consideration of the above-noted objections raised by the petitioners in the present revision petition, it is clearly made out that the revision is nothing but an attempt to delay the execution proceedings by all possible means. None of the objections raised by the petitioners merits acceptance. All conceivabl