M.KAPUR,J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 1.9.1992 passed by the District Munisif, Ajmer in execution case No. 27 of 1990. By this order it has been held that a person who was not party to the suit is not authorised to file objections of the nature which have been raised in this case.
(2.) THE history of the case is a long one. The suit was instituted in the year 1971 by the non-petitioner No. 1 Smt. Meera Bai against the non-petitioner No. 2 Ganpat Lal and a decree for rent and eviction was passed on 8.4.1976. During the execution of the decree the present petitioners obstructed. Their contention was that they were direct tenants of the opposite parties 1 and 3 and were not the sub-tenants of opposite party No. 2. The decree holder opposite party No. 1 filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, which was allowed. When the court proceeded to adjudicate upon this application and decided the same in favour of the decree holder the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed in default on 28.7.1988 and a restoration application is said to be still pending. During the pendencey of these proceedings the decree holder Meera Bai sold property to one Smt. Kanta Maheshwari by a registered sale deed dated 31.12.1981. Subsequently Kanta Maheshwari sold the property by a registered sale deed dated 6.7.1985 to opposite party No. 3 Shri R.S. Dhawan, who has now stepped in the share of the decree holder. He filed an application under Section 151 CPC along with execution application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC which application was allowed and Shri R.S. Dhawan was substituted in place of decree holder Meera Bai, by the order dated 1.12.1990. Thereafter notices were issued to the judgment-debtor, who did not appear. Warrant of possession was issued and thereafter the present petitioner filed objections stating that in the sale deeds in favour of Shri R.S. Dhawan and Kanta Maheshwari, it has been mentioned that possession has been delivered to the purchaser through the tenant and the name of Shambhu Dayal petitioner is also mentioned in it. The second objection taken was that in the warrant of possession the names of present petitioners could not be shown as judgment debtors. Another objection was that the decree had not been properly assigned in favour of Shri R.S. Dhawan. These objections of the petitioners have been disposed by the executing court by the impugned order dated 1.9.1992.
(3.) IT was stated that earlier the petitioners had raised objections under Order 21 Rule 22 CPC. No notice had been given to the persons who were obstructing and that the execution was time bared. The present decree holder has no right to execute the decree and these objections were dismissed on 28.1.1992 on the ground that the petitioners were not entitled to raise these objections as they were not the judgment-debtors. When the petitioners raised the objection claiming themselves to be tenants, the same were decided by the court on 26.3.1983 that they were not tenants of the decree holder and the application under Order 21 Rule 97 was accepted. It was again held that the third person cannot raise objection in execution and as such the objections were dismissed.;