JUDGMENT Per V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The challenge herein in this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’) is against the order dated 20.10.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jubbal, Shimla, H.P., whereby the execution objections filed by the petitioner/judgment debtor (JD) herein, under Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC, have been dismissed. 2.The execution petition arose out of a civil suit for grant of a decree of vacant possession of the suit land, filed by respondent No. 1/DH herein against the petitioner/JD, which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 10.03.2006, Annexures P-1 and P-2. Being aggrieved, petitioner/JD carried the matter in appeal to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, H.P., Camp at Rohru, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 17.06.2010, Annexure P-2. Admittedly, no further appeal was filed. 3.It was against the foregoing background that respondent No. 1/DH filed execution petition, Annexure P-4, to which the petitioner/JD filed the aforesaid objections, Annexure P-5. It shall be appropriate at this stage to notice the objections raised by the petitioner/JD, which find place in paras 1 to 8 of the execution objections and are as under: “1.That the execution petition in the present form is not maintainable since the objector/J.D. is one of the legal representatives of late Shishi Ram. Late Sh. Ram has two sons & two daughters and his widow wife who are all in possession of this land. They are not arrayed as parties hence the decree cannot be executed alone against the objector/J.D. The suit of the plaintiff/D.H. was for possession of the land comprised in khata khatauni No. 3 6/134 min khasra No. 666 measuring 0-01- 90 hectares situated in revenue chak Dharmara Teh. Jubbal, District Shimla (H.P.). The suit land was in possession of late Shishi Ram since his fore fathers. Shishi Ram made tremendous improvements over the suit land by planting apple orchards etc. over the suit land and the suit land had been coming in possession peacefully and without any interruption since the forefathers of the objector/J.D.2. That the decree holder filed a suit for possession only against the objector/J.D. which is not maintainable since the possession of the suit land was with Sh. over the suit land and the suit land had been coming in possession peacefully and without any interruption since the forefathers of the objector/J.D.2. That the decree holder filed a suit for possession only against the objector/J.D. which is not maintainable since the possession of the suit land was with Sh. Shishi Ram after the death of Shishi Ram all his legal representatives came in possession of the suit land as there is no legal partition among legal representatives of late Shishi Ram. Death certificate of late Shishi Ram & Register Intkal Mauja up Mahal Dharmara No Hadbadast­58/2 Teh. Jubbal is attached with objection for kind perusal of this ld. Court.3.That the D.H. filed the suit against JD after the death of Shishi Ram so the legal representatives of Shishi Ram are not made parties to the suit so on the ground of non- joinder of necessary parties the suit was liable to be dismissed since the judgment and decree passed by the ld. Trial Court is unexecutable in toto and against the interest of the other legal representatives of the late Shishi Ram.4.That the decree holder presented fabricated records before this ld. Court which are against the position of the spot. The land falls on PWD road which goes from Palsari to Khara Pathar and the land is on that road and the decree holder has received compensation and PWD Deptt. is also necessary party to be arrayed in the present suit. The D.H. has produced wrong tatima of the land in connivance with the revenue officials. The tatima as attached with the present suit is contrary to the position of the spot. The land falls in acquired width of HPPWD Deptt.5.That while issuing revenue record no proper demarcation was made on the spot. The record was prepared without measuring the land on spot.6.That the objector/J.D. has got hereditary land there and the D.H. has purchased the land there much later. Since the D.H. hails from other village and has settled there much later in this garb the D.H. wants to grab the land of objector/J.D.7.That the decree against the objector/J.D. is not exclusively executable since the suit land is in possession of the other legal representatives of late Shishi Ram. They developed the land and planted apple orchards over the land. They developed the land and planted apple orchards over the land. This fact is in the knowledge of the D.H. and the D.H. intentionally did not make them party in the suit and as well as in present execution petition.8.That the execution petition in the present form is not executable to recover the entire possession from the objector/J.D.” 4.Admittedly, respondent No. 1/D.H. did not file any reply to the aforesaid objections. 5. After hearing the parties and going through the record, the learned Executing Court dismissed the objections vide para 3 of the impugned order dated 20.10.2011, which reads as under: “3.I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the case file with minute care. It is clear from the objection filed on record that the objectors have only narrated and reiterated the facts in detail which have been mentioned by D.H. in his petition about the filing of the suit. Moreover these objections has to be taken by the J.D. before the Ld. Court at the time of hearing of the main suit. On the perusal of the judgment, which was annexed with the present execution petition, it is found that these objections were already adjudicated by the court while delivering the judgment on 10.03.2006, in Civil Suit No. 32/1 of 2004, titled as “Kehar Singh vs. Shri Surinder Singh and others.” These abjection are merely repetition of the facts already alleged by the JD during contesting the above said Civil Suit and which were duly heard and adjudicated by the Court. Otherwise also, the executing court cannot go behind the decree. Therefore these objections are not tenable at this stage. Hence, the objections filed by the JD are set aside. Let warrant of possession be issued on taking steps within 5 days.” 6. It shall be pertinent to state at the very outset that except the objection regarding non-joinder of necessary parties, other objections raised by the petitioner/JD against execution of the decree were not either raised in the suit or the parties were not at issue on the same. The objection regarding non-joinder of the necessary parties was subject matter of Issue No. 5 before the learned Trial Court and the same was decided against the petitioner/JD after due contest. The objection regarding non-joinder of the necessary parties was subject matter of Issue No. 5 before the learned Trial Court and the same was decided against the petitioner/JD after due contest. A perusal of the execution objections would go to show that it is not spelt out therein as to who others were necessary parties in the absence of whom the decree could not be executed. In such situation, to my mind, the petitioner/JD was precluded from raising such objection again in the execution petition albeit the fact that he had already been non-suited on this count and the findings to this effect were also upheld in appeal. 7. Now, while adverting to other objections regarding the suit having been filed on forged and fabricated revenue record and wrong demarcation, improvements having been made in the suit land by the petitioner-JD and the so called other necessary parties to the suit, that is, legal representatives of late Shri Shishi Ram, by planting an apple orchard therein and the alleged endeavour on the part of respondent No. 1/DH to grab the land belonging to the petitioner/JD are concerned, suffice it to say that as already observed either such objections were not raised during trial of the suit or at the appellate stage or the parties were not at issue on these counts. Even otherwise, such objections appear to have been raised for the first time at the execution stage and that too without any foundation having been laid for the same either in the suit or in any case at the appellate stage. 8.However, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/JD submits by placing reliance upon a judgment of this Court reported as Sh. Sohan Lal vs. Sh. Sadhu Ram, Latest HLJ 2003 (HP) 154, that once the aforesaid objections were raised in the execution petition, it was incumbent upon the learned Executing Court to have framed issues on the same and record evidence. Paras 7 and 8 of the judgment, being relevant are extracted below:“7. As per Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure all questions arising between the parties in the suit in which the decree was passed and relating to the execution discharge or satisfaction of the decree are to be determined by the Executing Court and not by a separate suit. As per Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure all questions arising between the parties in the suit in which the decree was passed and relating to the execution discharge or satisfaction of the decree are to be determined by the Executing Court and not by a separate suit. The Executing Court must decide the question of fact raised by way of objections relating to execution of the decree, by framing necessary issues and by allowing the parties to lead evidence, though it all depends upon the nature and tenor of the objections raised by the judgment Debtor. So far case in hand in concerned, the question of fact raised by judgment Debtor was that the decree is not executable in view of the agreement arrived at between the parties, as depicted in the affidavit sworn in by the Decree Holder, which can be determined after framing the issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence. It cannot be determined in the cursory manner, as it has been done by the Executing Court.8. Learned Counsel for the Decree holder hassupported the impugned order and has relied upon the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rocky Tyres, Chandigarh and others vs. Ajit Jain and Another, AIR 1998 Punjab and Haryana, 202 and this Court in M/S K.N. Trading Company V. Masonic Fraternity of Shimla, ILR 1995 (11) HP 1713. There is no quarrel to the proposition laid down in both these judgments that if the objections are prima facie frivolous, vexatious, intended to delay the execution, vague and would amount to abuse of process of the Court, the Executing Court may dismiss them without holding any inquiry, but if by way of objections prima facie it is shown that the decree is not executable for some legal and valid reasons the Executing Court is required to frame issues and record evidence and thereafter decide the objections.” 9. It has been held in the judgment relied upon in of para 7 that “The Executing Court must decide the question of fact raised by way of objections relating to execution of the decree, by framing necessary issues and by allowing the parties to lead evidence, though it all depends upon the nature and tenor of the objections raised by the judgment Debtor.”(Emphasis supplied) 10. It is further held in para 8 that “There is no quarrel to the proposition laid down in both these judgments that if the objections are prima facie frivolous, vexatious, intended to delay the execution, vague and would amount to abuse of process of the Court, the Executing Court may dismiss them without holding any inquiry, but if by way of objections prima facie it is shown that the decree is not executable for some legal and valid reasons the Executing Court is required to frame issues and record evidence and thereafter decide the objections.” 11. In the case of Shri Sohan Lal (supra) the objection raised by the judgment debtor was based on an affidavit sworn by the decree holder from which the judgment debtor wanted to show that the decree was not executable in view of agreement between the parties. However, the facts of the case in hand are entirely different for the reasons already stated hereinabove. 12.In view of the above, the revision petition is dismissed being without any merit. 13.The parties through their leaned Senior Counsel/Counsel are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 23rd July, 2012. The requisitioned record be returned so as to reach well before the date fixed.