Executing Courts must adhere to the decree's terms and cannot question its validity; legal heirs of a predecessor are bound by the decree.

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at admission stage with consent of both the sides.

2 By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the order passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhule / Executing Court below Exhibits 49 and 51 and order of issuance of possession warrant in Special Darkhast No.43 of 2016.

3 The factual matrix in narrow compass is as under:

i) Father of present petitioners (original plaintiff No.1)alongwith plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 had filed Special Civil Suit No.08 of 1991 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Dhule for specific performance of contract, delivery of possession, perpetual injunction and alternatively for refund of earnest money and damages on account of breach of contract. The said special civil suit filed by original plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 with plaintiff No.1 came to be decreed and direction was given to the defendants to pay jointly and severally sum of earnest money to plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 with interest. In the said suit, defendant No.12 has also filed counter claim wherein the description of the property is given.

Counter claim is decreed as under:-

(i) Plaintiffs nos.2 and 3 do hand over the possession of the portion of the suit property which is more particularly described in para. 26 of the counter claim to defendant No.12.

(ii) Claim of mesne profits is dismissed.

ii) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, deceased Chandanmal Oswal (plaintiff No.1) and plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 had filed Civil Appeal No.33 of 2013 before the District Court at Dhule. In the said civil appeal, defendants had also filed cross-objection. The said civil appeal and cross- objection came to be dismissed at the hands of the learned District Judge, Dhule vide judgment and order dated 29th December, 2015. The District Judge was pleased to confirm the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in Special Civil Suit No.08 of 1991. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the lower Appellate Court, the petitioners and plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 had filed Second Appeal No.314 of 2016 before this Court. This Court vide judgment and order dated 19th July, 2016 was pleased to dismiss Second Appeal No.314 of 2016 and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the lower Appellate Court came to be confirmed.

iii) Original Defendant No.12 filed execution petition before the Executing Court vide Special Darkhast No.43 of 2016. The present petitioners moved applications vide Exhibits 49 and 51 in the said Special Darkhast and raised objection about maintainability of the execution proceedings by raising various issues.

iv) The learned Executing Court after hearing both the sides and considering the decision passed by the Trial Court, which is upheld upto the High Court, was pleased to turn down the objection raised by the present petitioners and issued possession warrant against the present petitioners and others.

v) Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of objections and issuance of possession warrant passed by the Executing Court, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order by this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4 Heard Mr. N. L. Choudhari, learned counsel the for Petitioners, Mr. Y. G. Gujarathi, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 12 and Mrs. Charuta S. Deshmukh, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2-A to 2-C, 5-A, 5-B, 6-A to 6-C, 7-A to 7-C, 8-A to 8-C, 10 and 11.

5 Perused the impugned order passed by the Executing Court below Exhibits 49 and 51 by way of common order, copy of judgment passed by the Trial Court in Special Civil Suit No.08 of 1991, copy of judgment and order passed in Civil Appeal No.33 of 2013 and copy of judgment and order passed in Second Appeal No.314 of 2016 by this Court.

6 It is undisputed position that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in Special Civil Suit No.08 of 1991 came to be confirmed upto the High Court. The question is about exe