AKIL KURESHI,J. - (1.)Heard learned counsel for the parties for final disposal of this revision petition.
(2.)In this revision petition, the judgment debtor No.3 has challenged an order dated 03-01-2019 passed by the executing Court rejecting his objection petition filed in response to the execution petition filed by the respondent No.1, the decree holder. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent No.1 had filed a Title Suit No.10 of 2005 before the Civil Court. The Civil Court granted decree in part which reads as under :
"Suit is partly decreed on the contest but without cost.

Right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiff over the C scheduled land as reflected in Khatian No.1391 marked Ext.6 is hereby declared. In this regard it is clarified that in view of the Ext.6, it does not appear that plaintiff has possession over the Dag Nos.3650, 3184, 3166, 3167, 3677, 3810(P), 3805, 4108(P) and 3102 of the gift deed at present. The defendants are perpetually restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the C schedule land. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their respective cost of the suit. "

(3.)This decree has been confirmed up to the level of High Court. The decree holder moved the execution petition being EXT(T) No. 20 of 2016 before the executing Court. Perusal of this petition would show that the petitioner had referred to the prayers made in the suit, those granted by the Civil Court as confirmed by the higher courts and then stated as under:
"By the said suit, he also sought for a decree for recovery of possession of Schedule C lands and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from the said Schedule C lands while he sought for decree of partition of Schedule C1 supra. The learned Trial Judge by a judgment passed on 19-04-2006 decreed the suit and declared right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiff over the C Schedule land. However, the learned Trial Judge held that the plaintiff does not have possession over Dag Nos. 3650, 3184, 3166, 3167, 3677, 3810(P), 3805, 4108(P) and 3102 of the Gift Deed. However, the learned Trial Judge restrained the defendants perpetually from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the C schedule land described supra. The defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 5, the respondent opposite-party Nos. 1, 2 and 5 herein preferred Title Appeal No.42 of 2006 before the learned Appellate Court who by a judgment passed on 23rd May, 2007 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment of the learned Trial Judge, The said Defendant opposite-parties preferred RSA 60 of 2007 and the Hon 'ble High Court by a judgment passed on 24-09-2014 dismissed RSA 60 of 2007. In view of the judgment of the learned Trial Judge as affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, the plaintiff seeks the reliefs for execution of the decree restraining the defendants respondents from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff-petitioner herein over the Schedule C lands. "

;