- (1.) This revision petition is against the order dated 3.3.2014, dismissing the application of the petitioner/decree holder whereby he had prayed that issues No. 1 and 2, framed by the executing court, are unnecessary issues and may be struck of. In short, the petitioners filed the suit for mandatory injunction and in appeal the following decree was passed: "It is hereby ordered that I accept the appeal of the appellant/plaintiff with costs and judgment and decree of the lower Court declining the relief of mandatory injunction to the appellant/respondents No. 2 to 8 are hereby set aside and issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the appellant/plaintiff with the observation that appellant/respondents No. 2 to 8 will be entitled to total area of 47 Kanals 5 Marlas out of 63 Kanals and they are deficient in area to the extent of 8 Kanals and mandate is passed in favour of the appellant and respondents No. 2 to 8 and against respondent No. 1 to make the deficiency of that area to them."
(2.) Since the decree was not being followed by the judgment debtor, the petitioners filed an application under Order 21 Rule 32 of the CPC in which trial Court framed the following issues: "(i) Whether JD No. 1 is in possession of 8 Kanals excessive area out of 63 Kanal land? OPDH. (ii) Whether DH alongwith JDs No. 2 to 8 are entitled to get possession, if so, of what area? OPDH. (iii) Whether execution application is not maintainable? OPJD. (iv) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide execution application? OPJD. (v) Whether decree under execution is not executable? OPJD. (vi) Whether judgment and decree in question has been obtained by DH by playing the fraud on the Court as alleged? OPJD. (vii) Relief."
(3.) The petitioner then filed an application that issues No. 1 and 2 framed vide order dated 8.12.2012 are unnecessary issues and have wrongly been framed. This application has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 3.3.2014.;