Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Supplementary affidavit filed is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Anadi Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 2/1 to 2/9.

3. The Original Suit No. 423 of 1972 (Rishi Kumar v. Ramesh Chandra Sharma and others) for mandatory injunction for possession of the property in dispute was decreed by appellate Court and the said decree attained finality. The decree holder has put the said decree in execution. The petitioners are resisting the execution of the decree on the ground that they are purchasers of the part of the suit land from Smt. Surya Mukhi, the wife of one of the judgment debtors who was not substituted in appeal. In short the claim of the petitioners is that they are persons other than the judgment debtors in possession of the property.

4. The petitioners applied under Order 21 Rule 97/99 CPC that the decree may not be executed against them as their rights have intervened and the decree is not binding upon them. In order to substantiate their claim they moved application to adduce evidence but the application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 24.8.2012 which