SUDHIR NARAIN, J. ( 1 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 filed suit for permanent injunction in a representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8, CPC. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 11. 1. 1998. The defendants in suit filed appeal. The appeal was dismissed on 12. 5. 1999, They preferred Second Appeal. The Second appeal was dismissed by this Court on 25. 5. 1999. The defendants further preferred Special leave Petition before the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 4. 10. 1999. The plaintiff-repondents filed an application for execution of the decree. The petitioner filed objection under Section 47 of CPC alleging that he was not a party in the suit and as such the decree is not binding and the decree cannot be given effect to. The executing court rejected the objection on 27. 3. 2001. The petitioner preferred revision and the revision has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 24. 4. 2001. ( 2 ) I have heard Shri R. S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri M. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that as the petitioner was not party in the suit, the decree was not binding. The suit was decreed in representative capacity and the operative portion of the decree was as follows : qez e/kq izdkku jksgrd ds }kjk izlrqr dh x;hvkifrr;k /kkjk 47 lh-ih-lh- vk/kkjghu gsa A vr% lo;; [kkfjt dh tkrh gs en~;wu ij ewyokn la[;k 672@98 esaikfjr fu. kz; o fmh fnukafdr 11and1and1999 vurxzr vknsk Afu;e 8 lh-ih-lh- izfrfuf/k gsfl;r ds gksus ds dkj. kvkifrrdrkz en~;wu ij dkfcys ikcunh gs A en~;wu e/kqizdkku jksgrd dks cky Hkkjrh kcn ds vkxs ihns dksbz kcn tksm+dj iqlrd ds izdkku] eqnz. k] iznkzu ,oajk"vh; kcn ds iz;ksx dk dksbz vf/kdkj ugha gs A ( 4 ) THE decree related to every publisher which affected the rights of the plaintiff-respondents. It is not the contention of the petitioner that he has different defence in regard to decree of the plaintiff-respondents. In Prakashak Mohit Printers, Ghaziabad v. State of U. P. and Ors. , 2000 (18) LCD 649, against the same decree approached this Court on the ground that the decree was not binding upon him and as such the decree cannot be executed against him. The Court rejected the contention. In Prakashak Mohit Printers, Ghaziabad v. State of U. P. and Ors. , 2000 (18) LCD 649, against the same decree approached this Court on the ground that the decree was not binding upon him and as such the decree cannot be executed against him. The Court rejected the contention. ( 5 ) IN view of the said decision and the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. .