Guman Singh, J. - (1.) Counsel for the appellants assailed the judgment of the First Appellate Court as well as the order of The trial court passed on objection petition filed by the appellants under Order 21, Rules 97 to 101 C.PC: in Execution Case No. 5/1996, whereby the objection petition of the appellants was dismissed.
(2.) According to the learned counsel, the two courts below have failed to appreciate the grounds of objection petition in the proper legal perspective. He argued that from the evidence led on record it was proved that he had independent title to the suit premises as he had purchased the shop from one Gulab Chand and was in possession and as such, he can not be excluded through a decree to which he was not a party. He placed reliance on H. Seshadri v. K.R. Natarajan and another, 2003 (1) WLC (SC) Civil 658 : (2003) 10 SCC 449 , Laxmikant and others v. Satyawan and others, AIR 1996 SC 2052 , Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and another, AIR 1997 SC 856 on the point that stranger can get his claim adjudicated even prior to losing possession to decree-holder.
(3.) Per contra, counsel for the respondents has argued that the two courts below have given a concurrent finding of fact that the appellant is real brother of Gopal who was party in the original suit and after the suit of the respondents was decreed, Gopal filed an objection petition under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, which was dismissed and thereafter at his behest this petition through his younger brother has been filed. Therefore, the findings of two courts below cannot be faulted and the appeal of the appellants is liable to be dismissed in limine at the admission stage as there being no substantial question of law.;