K. Kannan, J. - (1.) THE revision is against an order rejecting an objection taken at the stage of the execution of decree for recovery of possession. The suit had been filed by the plaintiffs contending that a sale executed by the father was not binding on them which was not supported by any legal necessity. The Court found that although the document had been referred to as a sale deed, it was only a mortgage and that there was no necessity for such a transaction. It, however, directed the amount which was sought as consideration as the liability for the petitioner to discharge and allowed for a decree for possession to be passed on the payment of said sum. When the decree was put in execution, the contest by the judgment debtor was that all customs have been abrogated in Punjab and therefore, the suit filed contending that the sale was not binding, was not any longer valid. The Executing Court found no merit in this objection and proceeded further process in execution.
(2.) I find that the contention in defence was absolutely meritless and correctly dismissed by the Court below. I would find no reason to interfere with the same. It has turned out from the record that the decree holder had executed the decree immediately after the order was passed although at the revisional stage, this Court had originally granted a stay of dispossession. It was sought to be modified and restoration of possession was sought by the revision petitioner by taking advantage of direction for stay but the Court took notice of the fact that there had been possession effected pursuant to the order of the Executing Court initially and therefore, the grant of re -entry into possession was not granted. In the ultimate decision that I have taken, the decree holders are entitled to hold their possession through the execution order already carried out. The revision petition is dismissed.;