JUDGMENT
Amar Dutt, J.
1. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are that the land in dispute, which is situated in Khasra No. 1545 measuring 5 Kanals 0.6 Marlas belonged to one Karta Kishan. Out of this land, he had sold 340 Sq. yards to one Sham Lal on 24.2.1966, who in turn sold the same to five persons, namely, Jhunda 100 Sq.yards on 2.3.1966, Jag Ram 25 Sq.yards on 8.3.1966, Chatter Ram 150 Sq. yards on 5.3.1966, Pirthi and Laxmi 46 Sq.yards on 28.3.1966 and Lajpat Rai 46-2/9 Sq.yards on 28.3.1966. In all he sold 367-2/9 Sq.yards. Petitioner No. 1 being the widow of Karta Kishan along with his sons filed a civil suit against the alieness, namely. Sham Lal, Lajpat Rai, Laxmi, Pirthi, Jhunda, Jag Ram and Chaudhary Ram. These vendees in turn had further alienated the land to Suresh Chand and others, who were not impleaded in the suit despite the fact that in the written statement filed by Lajpat Rai, it had been specifically mentioned that the suit land had been sold to Dhanpat Rai and he had no interest in the same. On the property so purchased by him, Lajpat Rai had constructed three shops one of which he had sold to Nanak Chand on 22.12.1969, who in turn had sold the same to Suresh Chand, Bimal Parshad and Kiran Bala on 30.7.1974. Since the suit filed by Chameli Devi and others was decreed, she filed an execution application on 11.2.1980 for possession of 27-2/9 Sq. yards against Lajpat Rai and others. When the Field Kanungo, Patwari and others went to deliver the possession to the decree holders, it was reported that construction was in existence on the land, the possession of which was to be delivered to the decree holders. Another warrant of possession was issued and the Bailiff along with the Process Server upon going to the site reported that Suresh Chand and Bimal Parshad had resisted the delivery thereof and has also stated that the possession could not be delivered without the police help. It was at this stage that Suresh Chand had filed objections to the execution application.
2. In the objection petition, it was submitted that the decree could not be executed against him as he along with his brother Bimal Parshad and Kiran Bala had purchased the shop in question from Nanak Chahd son of Dhanpat Rai vide registered sale deed dated 30.7.1994 and that neither any one of the purchasers including the objector Suresh Chand nor the vendor Nanak Chand had been impleaded as a party. He also asserted that the decree in question was vague and unexecutable as in the same it was not mentioned as to which portion of Khasra No. 1545 was to be delivered to the decree holders. Moreover, it was submitted that the boundaries and the dimension of the land in dispute were not given in the plaint nor the same mentioned in the decree sheet and, therefore, the decree in question was null and void and was not binding on them.
3. These objections were contested by the decree holders on the ground that the same were not maintainable as the Civil Court cannot travel beyond the decree. It was asserted that the objector has no locus standi to file the same. Rather, it was asserted that Lajpat Rai Judgment Debtor has colluded with the objector just to defeat the decree in question. They also alleged that the objector was not the owner in possession of the suit property and the decree was executable in all respects.
4. From the stand taken by the parties, the following issues were framed:-
(1) Whether the decree dated 26.11.1979 is vague, unexecutable and not binding on the rights of the objector on the grounds alleged in the objection petition? O.P.
(2) Whether the objection petition is not maintainable as alleged?
(3) Whether the objector has no locus standi to file the objection petition?
(4) Whether the objector has colluded with the judgment debtor? If so, to what effect?
(5) Relief.
5. The parties led evidence and after scrutinishing the same, the trial Court decided issue Nos. 1 and 4 in favour of the Objector and against the decree holders. Issue Nos.2 and 3 were also decided in the same manner. The result was that the objection petition was allowed and the execution petition dismissed as unsatisfied on the ground that the decree in question could not be executed against the objector and that the shop which had been constructed on the spot could not be demolished in pursuance of the decree.
6. I have heard Mr. A.B.S. Wasu. appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Mr. S.K. Jain and Mr. A.K. Mittal, appearing on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case.
7. Although on behalf of the petitioners an effort was made to assail the view taken by the executing Court as unsustainable yet the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to make any serious dent in the reasoning adopted by the Court below for rejecting the execution application filed by the petitioners. He has not been able to dispute the fact that prior to the filing of the suit, Lajpat Rai had already sold the property in dispute to Suresh Chand and his brother Bimla Parshad and Kiran Bala, vide registered sale deed. This fact was mentioned in the written statement filed by Lajpat Rai in the suit and despite this fact the decree holders chose not to implead the subsequent vendees as parties. It is this lapse that has rightly impelled the executing Court to come to the conclusion that the decree was not executable against Suresh Chand, Bimal Par-shad and Kiran Bala. Further more, the Court has, after taking into consideration the fact that specific portion of Khasra numbers, which are to be handed over to the decree holders are not specified in the decree, relied upon the objections raised by the Field Kanungo and the Patwari, who were deputed to execute the warrant in question and had showed their inability to pin point the portion of Khasra No. 174/30, which was to be used for handing over possession of 27-2/9 Sq.yards of land for holding that the decree was unexecutable. The executing Court also noticed the fact that no evidence was brought on record by the petitioners regarding the transfers by Lajpat Rai having been made to avoid the consequences of the litigation that had been initiated by Chameli Devi and others for inferring that there was no collusion which could be taken into consideration for setting aside the sale deed. There being no evidence to rebut all these factors that were relied upon by the Court below for coming to the conclusion that issue Nos. 1 and 4 were to be decided in favour of the objector, the findings in relation to these issues have to be affirmed. In relation to issue Nos. 2 and 3 also the view taken by the executing Court does not call for any interference. Suresh Chand having been found to be in bona fide possession of the property in dispute in his own right would be entitled to maintain the objection petition.
For the reasons recorded above, this revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.