Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Sharvesh Kumar Pandey holding brief of Sri Vinay Kumar Khare, learned counsel for the objector/appellants and Sri Vinod Singh, learned counsel for decree holder/respondent No.1.
(2.) Learned counsel for the objector/appellants submits as under:- (i) Execution Application being Execution Case No.1 of 2012 was not maintainable since there was no decree for eviction of the objector-appellants herein. (ii) Appellants are occupying the disputed portion of the house since their birth. (iii) Appellants have inherited the property as a Joint Hindu Property, as they are grand children of Shobha Singh who has three sons, namely, Virendra Singh, Amit Singh and Anil Kumar Singh. The appellants are son and daughter of Amit Singh. (iv) A suit for permanent injunction being Original Suit No.136 of 2000 (Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Shobha Singh and others) was filed in which a compromise decree was passed on 28.08.2003 whereby each son of Shobha Singh, namely, Virendra Singh, Amit Singh and Anil Kumar Singh (Adopted son) each were given 1/3rd share. At the time of aforesaid decree the appellants were minor. They were not party to the compromise decree. Therefore, they lawfully filed objection in Execution Case No.1 of 2012 under Order XXI Rule 97 and 101 C.P.C. but court below has arbitrarily rejected it.
(3.) Sri Vinod Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order. He submits that firstly, father of the appellants filed various applications/objections and after being unsuccessful he had set up his wife and when she also became unsuccessful then he has set up his son and daughter, who are appellants herein. He referred to order dated 25.09.2012 in Writ-C No.48402 of 2012 (Amit Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others), order dated 13.01.2014 in Writ-C No.811 of 2014 (Amit Kumar Singh Vs. Shobha Singh and 3 others) and order dated 11.08.2016 in First Appeal No.739 of 2013 (Smt. Pooja Vs. Virendra Kumar Singh and 4 others).;