VINOD KUMAR MISHRA Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Vimal Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Awadhesh Shukla, learned Advocate holding brief of Mr. Badrish Tripathi, learned Counsel for the opposite parties 3 and 4.

(2.) I am informed that opposite party No. 5 is the father of the petitioners. Accordingly he is proforma party and there is no need to issue notice to him.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that for the house in question the ancestors of the petitioners as well as the opposite parties contested their right to the appellate stage. Ultimately, the opposite parties succeeded and for execution of the order passed by the Court, they moved an application before the Executing Court for implementation of the order, wherein the objection was filed by the predecessors of the petitioners and that too terminated in favour of the opposite parties and the order for delivery of possession to the opposite parties was issued on 22.01.2009 by the Executing Court. Thereafter on 13th of February, 2009 the petitioners in their personal capacity moved an application under Order XXI, Rules 97 and 99 in the form of objection being in possession over the house in question as strangers to the proceedings. Their application was contested by the opposite parties and the Courts below have rejected the same, on the ground that they are the legal heirs of the persons who had contested the case before the Civil Court on merit and ultimately they became unsuccessful. Now the petitioners, who are their successors, have no right to take a fresh plea before the Executing Court just to linger on the proceeding.