Harbans Lal, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Moga, dated November 13 1978, whereby the objections filed by the judgment -debtors -Petitioners. In execution of the decree were disallowed.
(2.) INDER Singh, decree -holder, Respondent obtained a decree for joint possession to the extent of one half share in the agricultural land from the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Moga, on January 28, 1978, against the judgment -debtors Petitioners and judgment -debtor Respondent No. 3. Efforts by the judgment debtors to challenge the said decree in appeal before the District Judge and thereafter before the High Court did rot prove successful. He even made a futile attempt to challenge the said decision by means of a special leave petition in the Supreme Court. In spite of that, he did not rest contented and challenged the said decree by means of a suit on the ground of fraud, but there also, he did not succeed in any forum. His appeal in the High Court was dismissed in limine on May 24, 1978. The decree -holde Respondent, filed an execution application wherein symbolical possession of one -half of the suit land as envisaged under order 21 Rule 35 (2), Code of Civil Procedure, (hereinafter called the Code), was delivered on September 7, 1971. Subsequently, another execution application for delivery of the actual possession was filed, but the same was dismissed. The decree related to one -half of the suit land and the remaining one half land belonged to one Gahia Singh. After his death, his estate was inherited by Inder Singh, decree holder -Respondent, and the mutation relating to the same was also sanctioned in favour of the decree holder -Respondent. Obviously, after the said mutation of inheritance, the decree holder Respondent became the owner of the entire suit land, i.e., to the extent of one -half by means of the decree and the other half as a result of the inheritence after the death of Gahia Singh. It was as a result of the development that the decree holder Respondent filed the execution application out of which this revision petition has arisen to get the actual physical possession of one -half of the land for which the decree had been passed in his favour. The judgment -debtors Petitioners, in their objection petition, took a number of objections, that due notice before the warrant of possession was not issued, the decision in the previous application will operate as res judicata and that the execution application was not maintainable. All the contentions were repelled and the impugned order was passed.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioners, has challenged the impugned order only on one ground, namely, that once the symbolic possession as envisaged under Order 21 Rule 35(2) of the Code had been obtained by the decree -holder -Respondent on September 7, 1971, the decree was completely satisfied and thereafter, no subsequent application for execution was maintainable as no part of the decree remained to be executed. According to the findings of the trial Court, the decree holder Respondent after the death of Gahia Singh became the exclusive owner of the entire land and as such, became entitled to the actual physical possession of even one half of the land regarding which the decree had been passed in his favour and, therefore, the present execution application for delivery of actual physical possession was maintainable.;