Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—This petition, at the instance of the plaintiff-decree holder, seeks the quashing of the judgment and order dated 7th August, 2008 by which the Revision filed by the judgment debtors was allowed and the order dated 17th May, 2008 passed by the Executing Court was set aside with a direction to the Executing Court to decide the objections filed by the judgment debtors afresh in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment. The Executing Court had, by the order dated 17th May, 2008, rejected the objections filed by the judgment debtors under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’) in Execution Case No. 1 of 1988.

2. The plaintiff, as owner and landlord of the open piece of land, instituted Original Suit No. 48 of 1981 for ejectment of defendant No. 1 or any other person found to be in possession of the plot of land and for recovery of arrears of rent with the allegation that in terms of the deed dated 7th January, 1978, the plot of land had been let out to defendant No. 1-Sayeeduddin for a period of one year; that the defendant No. 1 did not give possession of the plot of land on the expiry of the period of lease and nor did he pay the rent; that on the other hand, defendant No. 1 illegality executed a sale-deed dated 20th February, 1979 in favour of defendant No. 2-Masroor and defendant No. 3-Leela treating himself to be owner of the plot of land; that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 also executed a sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 4-Israr Khan on 17th March, 1980; that the plaintiff had never executed any document in favour of defendant No. 1; that the aforesaid sale-deeds are illegal and void and plaintiff continues to be the owner and landlord of the plot of land and that by the notice dated 13th July, 1979 the plaintiff informed defendant No. 1 that the tenancy of defendant No. 1 would stand terminated on the expiry of the period mentioned in the notice and defendant No. 1 was called upon to pay the arrears of rent but the defendants did not vacate the land and nor was the arrears of rent paid to the plaintiff.

3. A written statement was filed by defendant No. 1-Sayeeduddin. It was asserted that the plaintiff had executed a registered sale-deed in favour of the answering defendant on 17th February, 1979 as a result of which the answering defendant became the owner of the plot of land; that there was, therefore, no relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties and the question of determination of the tenancy did not arise. A separate written statement was also filed by defendant Nos. 2 to 4. It was asserted that a sale-deed had been executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 1 thereafter executed a sale-deed in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3, who also executed a sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 4 subsequently.

4. After filing of the written statements, the defendants did not appear to contest the suit and an order was passed by the Court on 10th September, 1985 for proceeding ex-parte against the defendants. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.-1 and supported the averments made in the plaint. He also proved the rent deed (Exhibit-1) and the notice served on the defendant (Exhibit-3). The suit was decreed by the Trial Court on 9th December, 1985 and defendants were directed to give possession of the plot of land to the plaintiff within a period of one month.

5. Defendant No. 1-Sayeeduddin alone moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. This application (Paper No. 3-C) was accompanied by an application (Paper No. 4-C) under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the application. The Court by the order dated 16th September, 1991 rejected application 4-C filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act and, accordingly, application 3-C filed for setting aside the ex-parte decree was also rejected.

6. The order dated 16th September, 1991 passed on a