JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral). - CM No. 2760.C of 2011 The application is allowed and Annexures A/1 to A/4 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. ESA No. 5 of 2011 2. Santokh Singh has filed the instant execution second appeal arising out of execution proceedings. 3. Respondent no. 1 Jarnail Singh (decree holder) filed suit against respondents no. 4 to 6 (judgment debtors) for possession of the suit property by specific performance of agreement to sell. The said suit was decreed ex parte vide judgment and decree dated 28.1.2008, Annexure A/2. Respondent no. 1 decree holder filed execution petition for execution of the said decree against respondents no. 4 to 6. In the said execution petition. Santokh Singh appellant herein filed objections dated 11.9.2009, Annexure A/3. Decree holder respondent no. 1 resisted the said objections by filing reply Annexure A/4. Learned executing court passed impugned order dated 22.9.2009 which is reproduced hereinunder:- “Counsel for the DH stated that symbolic possession has been delivered as such the present execution is dismissed as satisfied. File be consigned to the record room.” 4. Objector Santokh Singh filed appeal against the said order which has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur vide impugned order dated 18.11.2010. Feeling aggrieved, objector Santokh Singh has filed the instant second appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. 6. Main grievance canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant in the instant second appeal is that objections Annexure A/3 preferred by the appellant in the execution proceedings have not been adjudicated upon by the executing court and the lower appellate court. 7. I have carefully considered the aforesaid submission which on the face of it appears very attractive and forceful but in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the said submission is completely devoid of merit. As per reply Annexure A/4 filed by decree holder to the objections of the appellant, possession of the suit land was delivered to respondent no. 1 decree holder vide report roznamacha 17.7.2009. Learned counsel for the appellant also states report regarding execution of the warrant of possession was made on 17.7.2009. The objections were, however, preferred on 11.9.2009. It depicts that even before the filing of the objections possession of the suit land had been delivered to the decree holder. 1 decree holder vide report roznamacha 17.7.2009. Learned counsel for the appellant also states report regarding execution of the warrant of possession was made on 17.7.2009. The objections were, however, preferred on 11.9.2009. It depicts that even before the filing of the objections possession of the suit land had been delivered to the decree holder. Consequently, on 22.9.2009, the decree holder got the execution petition dismissed (disposed of) as satisfied. 8. There is a very significant aspect of the matter. Appellant-objector in objections Annexure A/3 did not plead any fact to depict that the appellant-objector has any right, title or interest in the suit land. On persistent enquiry even learned counsel for the appellant is unable to refer to any pleading in objections Annexure A/3 depicting any right, title or interest of the objector-appellant in the suit land. Consequently, appellant-objector has no locus standi to file the objection petition Annexure A/3 and therefore, even if the said objection petition was not adjudicated upon by the executing court, no prejudice has been caused to the appellant-objector who has no locus standi to file the objection petition or to intervene in the execution petition. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant execution second appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine. ----------0BSK0----------