Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties.
(2.) This petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 1.4.2013 and 19.7.2013.
(3.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the appointment of Commissioner, which has been allowed on the application of opposite party no.3 by the trial court. While execution of the decree, opposite party no.3 moved an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC along with objection under Section 47 CPC resisting the execution of the decree passed in Civil Suit No.146 of 1989. The suit was contested and after putting appearance, opposite party no.3 did not contest the proceedings and it was decreed ex-parte. Against the said order, application under Order 9 Rule 13 was moved by opposite party no.3 which was also rejected. Opposite party no.3 thereafter filed appeal against the said order, which too was dismissed. He also approached this Court by filing writ petition and the writ petition was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 26.8.2009.;