JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri H.C. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Through this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.8.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mainpuri in Misc. Case No. 94 of 2011 (Madhu Kumari and another v. Shekhar Bhadauria and another) and judgment and order dated 11.10.2013 passed by the District Judge, Mainpuri in SCC Revision No. 6 of 2012 (Madhu Kumari and another v. Shekhar Bhadauria and another). 3. vide order dated 22.8.2012, the petitioners’ application filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’) has been rejected, whereas by the subsequent order dated 11.10.2013, the revision filed by the petitioners against the order dated 22.8.2012 has been dismissed by the learned District Judge, Mainpuri. 4. While assailing these orders, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned orders are unsustainable on the following grounds; (i) Because Suraj Pal, the father of the petitioners, died during the pendency of the suit and after his death, his few heirs were impleaded, but the petitioners were not impleaded, therefore, the orders passed in the suit and even thereafter, are nullity as against the petitioners; (ii) Because the revisional Court has wrongly observed that in case the petitioners are aggrieved by the decree of eviction, they have right to file a separate suit. In his submissions, under Section 47 of the CPC, fresh suit will not lie and the executing Court itself has every power in this regard. 5. The facts giving rise to this case are that it appears, one Sri Anand Madwal has filed SCC Case No. 39 of 1974 (Anand Madwal v. Krishna Murari and others), seeking eviction of late Krishna Murari and late Suraj Pal. In the said suit, a written statement paper No. 21 (ka) was filed. Thereafter, number of issues were framed and ultimately, the suit was decreed on 24.2.2003. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.2.2013, Smt. Ramshri, alongwith others, filed SCC Revision 1 of 2003. The revision was dismissed on 15.11.2008. Aggrieved by the judgment and orders dated 15.11.2008 and 24.2.2008, a writ petition was filed before this Court and the said writ petition was dismissed on 18.12.2008. It appears, against this order, an SLP was filed before the Apex Court. The revision was dismissed on 15.11.2008. Aggrieved by the judgment and orders dated 15.11.2008 and 24.2.2008, a writ petition was filed before this Court and the said writ petition was dismissed on 18.12.2008. It appears, against this order, an SLP was filed before the Apex Court. That too was dismissed. 7. It would further transpire that the original landlord (decree holder) late Anand Madwal executed a registered sale-deed of the disputed shop in favour of Sri Shekhar Bhadauria and Sri Pankaj Verma on 16.4.2009. Later on, Pankaj Verma sold his half share in the disputed shop to Sri Deepak Verma vide sale-deed dated 22.8.2009. 8. In turn, Sri Shekhar Bhadauria and Deepak Verma filed Execution Case No. 1 of 2009. In this execution case, the present petitioners, after awaking from the slumber, filed an objection under Section 47 of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC claiming themselves to be the daughters of late Suraj Pal stating therein that Suraj Pal died during the pendency of the suit, but the petitioners were not substituted in the suit. Although it is admitted that some of the heirs of late Suraj Pal have been substituted and some have wrongly been substituted and some have been omitted. 9. The learned Judge, Small Causes Court has rejected the petitioners’ objection, taking the petitioners’ status as of a joint tenant, by observing that if out of some joint tenants, few have been substituted and have represented the cause, it is sufficient and that will not be fatal for executing the decree. The learned Judge has also noted that the married daughters are not the necessary party. The aggrieved petitioners have filed revision. That too was dismissed. 10. Sri Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that as the petitioners were not substituted after the death of Suraj Pal, therefore, the suit itself abated against them and further, an order passed against them is a nullity, therefore, decree cannot be executed against them. He has further submitted that the status of the petitioners’ father was of a co-tenant, therefore, his all heirs were to be substituted. 11. On being confronted as to whether late Suraj Pal has filed a separate written statement and claimed himself co-tenant, he could not substantiate from the records that he has filed any separate written statement claiming himself to be co-tenant with late Krishna Murari Lal. 11. On being confronted as to whether late Suraj Pal has filed a separate written statement and claimed himself co-tenant, he could not substantiate from the records that he has filed any separate written statement claiming himself to be co-tenant with late Krishna Murari Lal. On the contrary, from the perusal of the judgment and decree passed in SCC case No. 39 of 1974, it transpires that only one written statement was filed. It may be noticed that late Suraj Pal was the son of late Krishna Murari Lal. On being further confronted that as per the case, Suraj Pal died during the pendency of the suit, how the tenancy of the petitioners has survived during this period and to whom they have been paying rent, no positive material could be shown to the Court in this regard, therefore, in absence of any proof with regard to the plea of co-tenancy and continuance of tenancy after the death of Suraj Pal, the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below that the petitioners’ status is of a joint-tenant cannot be faulted with. In Angoori Devi v. Smt. Chandra Kanta and others, 2006 (1) ARC 773 , Ayub Alit v. Tahir Ahamad Khan and others, 2008 (1) ARC 215 and Shiv Kumar and 5 others v. Shareef Ahamad and 2 others, 2001 (3) ARC 15, it has been held that a decree of eviction against one joint tenant is binding upon the non-impleaded joint tenant also, therefore, also no infirmity can be attached to the impugned orders. 12. Further, in Smt. Raj Kumari and others v. Additional District, Court No. 7, Muzaffarnagar and others, 2007 (1) AWC 1050 , it has been held by this Court that the married daughters of the original tenant are not entitled to be impleaded as party. There is no denial that the petitioners are married daughters of late Suraj Pal. Contrary to that, they have come with the case that they are married daughters of late Suraj Pal. 13. The next submission of Sri Verma is that the revisional Court has erred in observing that the petitioners have right to file a separate suit. In his submissions, each and every thing was in the domain of the executing Court and it was incumbent upon the executing Court to decide the same as no separate suit shall lie. 13. The next submission of Sri Verma is that the revisional Court has erred in observing that the petitioners have right to file a separate suit. In his submissions, each and every thing was in the domain of the executing Court and it was incumbent upon the executing Court to decide the same as no separate suit shall lie. On this premises, the submission of Sri Verma may be correct, but under the facts and circumstances where the petitioners status is of a joint tenant, there is neither any scope for filing any fresh suit declaring the earlier decree null and void or to raise any hindrance in the execution of decree. 14. Otherwise also, the facts of this case are such which do not warrant the exercise of the equitable discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the simple reason that the suit was filed in the year 1974 and it has remained pending for about 29 years and decreed in the year 2003 for the reason best known to the parties and the Court below. Thereafter, a revision before the Court below, a writ petition before this Court and S.L.P. before the Apex Court were filed, but all failed. 15. I view of the foregoing discussions, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. 16. The writ petition is dismissed. 17. The executing Court is directed to execute the decree in accordance with law without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the learned counsel for the parties. In case adjournment is sought, that shall only be granted after imposing cost not less than Rs. 1,000/-, per date, with the direction to deposit the cost by the next date fixed, which shall not be fixed latter than 10 days from the date of earlier adjournment. In the event of failure of deposit of cost, the executing Court shall execute the decree forthwith. 18. In the last, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that some breathing time may be granted for vacating the accommodation in dispute. 19. In the event of failure of deposit of cost, the executing Court shall execute the decree forthwith. 18. In the last, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that some breathing time may be granted for vacating the accommodation in dispute. 19. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, two months’ time is granted to the petitioners to vacate the accommodation in dispute, provided they are in possession of the accommodation in dispute and file an undertaking before the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, by 7.1.2014, that they will vacate the accommodation in dispute by 20.2.2014.