Hon’ble Sunil Hali, J.—A civil suit No. 164 of 2000 was filed before the Civil Court seeking decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing the respondents not to make any obstruction in the plaintiffs user of land and not to raise any constructions over the land/Plot No. 367/3 belonging to the plaintiffs. By way of an interim measure, vide order dated 31.5.2000, a direction was issued to the defendants to remove the additional and illegal constructions raised by the defendants and not to raise any further constructions or encroachment upon the plaintiffs land. During the pendency of the suit an application for impleadment of tenants of Nagar Palika Parishad as defendant Nos. 3 to 10 was filed. It seems that the application was not pursued as a result of which same was dismissed as not pressed on 11.2.2003 by the trial Court. This order was not questioned by the tenants before the Higher Court.

2. Trial Court vide its order dated 4.9.2003 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs by directing demolition of ten shops constructed on the land belonging to the plaintiffs-petitioners. The said decree was challenged before the first appellate Court without any success by the defendants. Second Appeal was filed before this Court and the same stood dismissed by its order dated 29.7.2005 as such the decree passed in Suit No. 164 of 2000 had attain finality. An execution application was filed by the petitioner before the executing Court which was numbered as Execution Petition No. 13 of 2005. The judgment debtor appeared before the Trial Court and sought time to comply with the decree. An application bearing No. 24 C was filed by the judgment debtor on 26.9.2006 and 30.6.2006 praying therein that the property in question was in possession of the tenants to whom notices have been sent by him for evicting the premises. The decree cannot be implemented unless the tenants are evicted from the premises. Executing Court rejected the plea of the judgment debtor on the ground that the tenants have already filed an application for impleadment but did not pursue the same as a result of which the said application was dismissed. He was directed to have the decree implemented within a period of twenty days. This order was questioned before the Revisional Court who vide its order dated 13.5.2007 allowed the revision petition and directed that the applicants (tenants) be heard in the execution petition filed by the judgment holder. It is this order which is subject matter of challenge before this Court in the instant writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

4. Facts in the case are not in dispute that the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 164 of 2000 had attained finality. Directions issued in the suit are that the constructions of the shops raised by the Nagar Palika Parishad are required to be demolished in order to remove the encroachment made on the land belonging to the petitioners. For seeking enforcement of the decree, execution application was filed before the Executing Court. It is before the Executing Court an application was filed by the appellants that the decree cannot be implemented as the tenants are in possession over the property and have an independent right to remain in possession of the property.

5. Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC) envisages that all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit so that the issues which are required to be determined by the Civil Court must relate to the execution and discharge of the decree and not for the purpose of re-determination of any rights in the said decree. It also envisages that all questions relating to delivery of possession of such property and any issue relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the de