JUDGMENT Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. The facts in this petition discloses a sorry state of affairs where an eviction decree of August, 1992 is yet to be executed in view of various objections being filed by the tenants at different point of time. 3. The predecessor in interest of the respondent-landlord instituted a S.C.C. suit no. 17 of 1992 against the predecessor in interest of the petitioner-tenants for ejectment and arrears of rent as well as for mesne profit. The said suit was duly decreed on 26.8.1992. An application for recall was filed on behalf of the tenant being Misc. Case No.70 of 1993 for recalling the exparte decree but the same was dismissed on merit on 2.5.1994 where-after? Raunaq Ali son of the tenant filed an application under section 47 C.P.C. which was numbered as Misc. Case no. 83 of 1994 which was also dismissed on 27.5.1994 where-after the wife of Raunaq Ali has also preferred an objection under section 47 C.P.C. which was dismissed in September, 1998. thereafter, the petitioner no. 1 again moved restoration application which was registered as Misc. Case no. 74 of 2003 for setting aside the exparte decree but the same was dismissed on 12.5.2004 against which he preferred a revision but it was dismissed on 26.5.2007. Not satisfied, he preferred writ petition no. 27066 of 2007 and the learned Single Judge upheld the finding that the summon was duly served upon the father of the petitioner Umrao Bahadur who had also acknowledged the receipt of the registered letter and his restoration application had already been dismissed in 1994, refused interference and dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 19.7.2007. 4. Undeterred, the petitioner again filed an objection under section 47 C.P.C. read with order 21 rule 101 C.P.C. and after contest, the same was dismissed vide order dated 24.9.2008 which was assailed by the petitioner in revision no.22 of 2008 which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 31.1.2010. 5. In the present petition, the petitioner raised a new ground that the subject matter is an open land and therefore, the suit was not maintainable before Judge, Small Cause Court and therefore the judgment was nullity which cannot be executed. 6. 5. In the present petition, the petitioner raised a new ground that the subject matter is an open land and therefore, the suit was not maintainable before Judge, Small Cause Court and therefore the judgment was nullity which cannot be executed. 6. The Court below found that the brother of the petitioner, Raunaq Ali in his objection under section 47 CPC which was registered as Misc. Case No.83 of 1999 had clearly mentioned that the shop was a part of the disputed property. The court below has also relied upon the rent deed dated 13.12.1947 (paper no. 17/c/6-9) executed between the predecessors in interest of both the parties which clearly shows that the property was a building and was taken on rent for running wood tall. It is a pure finding of fact which has not been demonstrated to be perverse. 7. As noted above, the respondent-landlord has not been able to take possession over the disputed property even though 18 years has expired after the decree was passed mainly because of the heirs of the original tenant engaging themselves at different point of time in raising different objections. The court feels that it is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with cost which is quantified at Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the landlord before the executing court. Further, the executing court is directed to forthwith execute the decree. 9. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the Executing Court forthwith.?