1. This appeal is directed against order of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), fatehgarh Sahib dated 4.6.2008 and the order of the District. Judge, Fatehgarh sahib dated 03.03.2009, whereby objections filed by the appellant-Kapoor Singh were dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that sarwan Singh son of Bishan Singh (hereinafter referred to as judgment debtor) entered into an agreement to sell dated 16.5.1988 with one Om Parkash son of bhiwani Ram (hereinafter referred to as decree holder)land falling in Khewat/khatoni no.55, Khasra No.112 (8-10) 113 min. total measuring 10 Bighas 10 Biswas situated in village Khoje Majra, Tehsil and District fatehgarh Sahib, @ Rs.8,000/- per bigha after receiving earnest money of Rs.50,000/-. The sale deed was to be executed by judgment debtor in favour of the decree holder on or before 30.5.1989. Since the judgment debtor did not execute the sale deed as stated in the agreement, therefore, the decree holder filed a Civil Suit No.657 of 16.9.1991 titled as Om Parkash V/s. Sarwan singh for specific performance and permanent injunction which was decreed by Sub judge 1st Class, Fatehgarh Sahib on 22.10.1994. The decree passed in the suit reads as under:

"it is hereby ordered that the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for specific performance of Agreement to Sell Ex. P-54 dated 16.5.1988 by way of execution and registration of sale deed regarding the land in dispute by the defendant in favour of plaintiff on receipt of balance amount of consideration of Rs.34000/- (Rs.34000/-) with costs and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit land to anybody else except the plaintiff and dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land."

3. The decree holder filed an execution application dated 29.3.2001 for execution of the sale deed in his favour by the judgment debtor or by way of appointment of local Commissioner after depositing the balance amount. In execution of the said decree, sale deed No.356 dated 8.5.2002 was executed and registered in favour of the decree holder in respect of the land in question. After the execution of the decree and the sale deed, decree holder filed an application dated 22.5.2002 in which it was averred that the judgment debtor had forcibly taken possession and since the decree dated 22.10.1994 was also for permanent injunction, therefore, invoking the power of the Executing Court, under Order 21 Rule 32 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short cpc), it was prayed that the possession be re-delivered to the decree holder. Since the decree holder filed the aforesaid application, gurdev Singh one of the brothers of Sarwan singh (decree holder) filed objection petition on 23.5.2002 under Order 21 Rules 58, 89 and 90 of CPC for setting aside the sale deed no.356 dated 8.5.2002, inter alia, on the ground that the decree holder did not disclose that property in dispute is in possession of the objector (Gurdev Singh) as owner and an electric connection bearing A/c. No. A-606 is installed therein for the last more than 18 years in his name, which was got installed by him on 31.3.1984. It was also alleged that earlier the land in question was owned by the judgment debtor but it is in possession of the objector (Gurdev singh ). The judgment debtor had exchanged the land in question with Objector (Gurdev singh and Kapoor Singh) jointly on the basis of which Mutation No.1236 was sanctioned on 8.5.1998. Thereafter, the land was partitioned between the Kapoor Singh and the objector (Gurdev Singh) and Mutation no.1237 was sanctioned. It was, thus, claimed that Objector (Gurdev Singh) is the exclusive owner in possession of the land in question with which judgment debtor had no concern. The decree holder contested the objection petition filed by Gurdev Singh which was ultimately dismissed by the executing Court vide order dated 8.2.2005 observing that the objections filed by Gurdev singh are in collusion with Sarwan Singh (judgme