Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—Heard Shri Vijendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri M.A. Qadeer, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Shamim Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondents Nos 1 to 9.

2. The writ petition is filed challenging the orders dated 5.7.2008 passed by the Civil Judge(J.D.) Nazibabad District Bijnor in misc. case No. 57 of 2007 as also the order dated 20.8.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bijnor in civil revision No. 72 of 2008 which arose out of the misc case.

3. Brief facts relevant for deciding the controversy are that original suit No. 599 of 1965 for permanent injunction was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 9 against the defendants in the said suit. The said suit was decreed on 23.10.1967. Petitioner claims ownership over the suit property which is subject-matter of the decree. An application under Order XXI Rule 99 read with Rule 101 C.P.C. was filed by the petitioner in execution case No. 300 of 1968 on the ground that petitioner is owner in possession of the suit property. The respondent decree holder in collusion with the defendant got the decree dated 23.10.1967 including the property of the petitioner with a view to grab the same. The suit property which is subject-matter of the controversy, a single storied residential house consisting of one room(Kotha) and Sahan, was transferred by father of the petitioner in favour of his daughter, the petitioner and his son Hasim alias Kasim through sale-deed dated 3.8.1981. The aforesaid property has been wrongly included by the ancestors of respondent Nos. 1 to 9 in the suit property and decree was obtained in original suit No. 599 of 1965 without arraying the petitioner as one of the defendant in the suit. The petitioner was living at her in-laws’ house and her brother Hasim also died about 25 years back leaving behind two sons Noor Mohammad and Munees. Noor Mohamad also died and as such the petitioner could not know about filing of the original suit No. 599 of 1965 and the decree passed therein. After death of her husband when petitioner started living in the disputed house alongwith her children and nephew Muneer, the respondents decree holder started interfering with her possession, then she came to know about the decree. In order to restrain the respondent from interfering in her possession, suit No. 159 of 2005 for permanent injunction was filed by the petitioner and interim injunction has been granted in her favour to the effect that the parties were directed to maintain status quo on the spot.

4. When petitioner came to know about the pendency of execution case no 300 of 1968, she filed an application dated 7.10.2005 bringing on record the interim injunction granted in original suit No. 159 of 2005.The decree holders objected to the maintainability of the aforesaid application on the ground that the petitioner was not a party to the suit and had no legal right to move an application for stay of the execution proceedings. The petitioner being the third party can approach the execution Court only under Order XXI Rule 99 C.P.C. The application 205 Ga was rejected vide order dated 23.7.2007 on the ground of maintainability. While rejecting the application, executing Court observed that the property which was subject-matter of original suit No. 159 of 2005 was not the same and hence is not relatable to the suit property which was subject-matter of the execution case. The application has been filed with a view to delay the execution of the decree. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Order XXI Rule 99 C.P.C. read with Rule 101 C.PC. on 1.9.2007 before the Executing Court with the contention that the suit property of the decree passed in original suit No. 599 of 1965 included the petitioners’ property as well and as such the decree was not executable. The disputed property was in possession of the petitioner.

5. After filing the application under Order XXI Rule 99 read with Rule 101 C.P.C., an app