Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10.2.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Musafirkhana, District Sultanpur in Execution Case no. 22 of 1978, Mata Prasad and others v. Zila Parishad and others , against which, a revision was preferred, which was dismissed vide order dated 24.2.2012.
(2.) The facts, in short, giving rise to the present dispute are that the petitioners' ancestors filed a suit which was dismissed on 30.8.1977. Against the said judgment and decree dated 30.8.1977, the plaintiffs filed a Civil Appeal No. 350 of 1977, which was allowed vide order dated 1.6.1978 and a direction was issued to demolish the construction in suit within three months and to deliver the possession of the land in suit to the plaintiffs (now petitioners). Thereafter, execution application was moved by the ancestors of the petitioners as well as opposite part nos. 3 to 18. The execution court called the report of the Commission and the Commission submitted the report in compliance of the court's order alongwith the site plan. Against the said Commission's report, an objection was filed by the Zila Parishad, which was rejected. In the second appeal preferred against the order dated 1.6.1978, an interim order was granted on 14.12.1979, but later on the said order was modified on 8.5.1980 by means of which, the appellants were restrained from making any fresh constructions or from otherwise altering the nature of the property in dispute. The executing court passed an order on 8.10.1980, allowing the execution application in part and handed over the possession over the vacant land and also auctioned the rest constructed property. In the meantime, second appeal was dismissed in default on 2.2.2007. Thereafter, the judgment and decree was put into execution. The executing court allowed the substitution application filed by the heirs and after substitution, issued a writ to Amin on 16.9.2011 and in compliance of order of the executing court, he submitted his report on 19.10.2011. The petitioners were put into possession with the aid of police force on 3.2.2012. The opposite parties no.3 and 4 thereafter moved an application under Section 144 CPC with the prayer that the excess area of which possession has been given to the petitioners may be corrected and the opposite parties no.3 and 4 may be put back in that land as the said land was not the subject matter of suit, neither the decree could be executed in respect of the said land. The suit was only in respect of three shops, which was subject matter of suit, therefore, the decree can be executed to the extent of three shops.
(3.) On the aforesaid allegation, when the application under Section 144 CPC was moved, the trial court proceeded to issue notice to the decree holders, namely, Shiv Poojan, Ram Poojan, Arvind, and his counsel, inviting objections, fixing 10.2.2012. Against the said order, a revision was preferred, which has been dismissed vide order 24.2.2012.;