VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.12.2007 passed by the learned Executing Court vide which application moved by the petitioners under Sections 151, 152 CPC and objections under Section 47 CPC, have been ordered to be dismissed.
(2.) THE Judgment Debtor claimed that the decree-holder filed a suit for possession of the property on the basis of a sale certificate issued by JD No. 2 in an auction and the said property i.e. the Plot No. B-II-18 bounded as East : B-11-19, West : Gali, North : B-II-20 and South : Gali as detailed and described in the sale certificate dated 29.4,1960. The Civil suit filed by decree holder was decreed on the basis of judgment and decree dated 9.8.1985 passed by the learned Addl. Senior Sub Judge, Gurdaspur and the appeal preferred against the said order was also dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur on 6.11.1986. It is the case of the petitioner that decree holder filed an execution concealing the material facts from the Court and distorted the exact location of boundaries of the suit property and thus committed fraud at the time of execution. It is the case of the petitioner that the property given in the sale certificate is non-existence. It was further the case of the petitioner that the decree holder-filed a suit for mandatory injunction for correction of the boundaries and said suit was withdrawn by the decree holder. It was further case of the petitioner that an application was also moved with the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Gurdaspur seeking a certificate specifying the correct boundaries and also give dimensions of the property purchased i.e. B-1I-18. The said application was also withdrawn. It was further the case of the petitioners that with the connivance of Bailiff and with the help of local police authorities and in the garb of Warrants of possession he has taken wrong delivery of possession of the property, which was not covered under the property in execution. It was claimed that JDs have been illegally dispossessed and, therefore, they were liable to put back in possession by correction of error.
(3.) THE application was contested and on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed : "1. Whether Decree holders have been delivered the possession of the land in accordance with the subject matter of the decree ? OPA 2. Relief.";