JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. This is a case where a landlord even after winning from the Hon’ble Supreme Court could not get possession of the premises in question and now has been dragged to the Court by another person. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and Others Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (dead) through LRs, [2012 (2) ARC 325], observed in the following manner: “Litigation pertaining to valuable real estate properties is dragged on by unscrupulous litigants in the hope that the other party will tire out and ultimately would settle with them by paying a huge amount. This happens because of the enormous delay in adjudication of cases in our Courts. If a pragmatic approach is adopted, then this problem can be minimized to a large extent.” Above observation fully apply in the present case. The landlords were harassed at every stage. Service could be made only by way of publication. When tenant lost from the Hon’ble Apex Court also, the present revisionist started litigation by filing objection under Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C. 2. Facts giving rise to the present revision are that a Small Cause Suit was instituted by one Km. Patricia Francis against Shri Ghanshyam Dogra before the Court of Judge Small Cause Court/District Judge, Dehradun, for his eviction and recovery of rent, which was registered as SCC Suit no. 53 of 1990 “Km. Patricia Francis Vs. Ghanshyam Dogra”. In the said suit, it was alleged that Shri Ghanshyam Dogra was the tenant in premises in question and after terminating his tenancy, suit for eviction was filed. On the other hand, Shri Ghanshyam Dogra denied relationship of landlord and tenant. Vide judgment and decree dated 27.07.2004, the learned Judge SCC/ District Judge, Dehradun dismissed SCC Suit no. 53 of 1990. Km. Patricia Francis, feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2004, filed Civil Revision no. 50 of 2004 before this Court. In the meantime, Km. Patricia Francis passed away and was substituted by her legal representatives. This Court allowed Civil Revision no. 50 of 2004 on 06.04.2010 and set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2004, and decreed SCC Suit no. 53 of 1990 in favour of landlord, directing eviction of tenant Ghanshyam Dogra. 50 of 2004 before this Court. In the meantime, Km. Patricia Francis passed away and was substituted by her legal representatives. This Court allowed Civil Revision no. 50 of 2004 on 06.04.2010 and set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2004, and decreed SCC Suit no. 53 of 1990 in favour of landlord, directing eviction of tenant Ghanshyam Dogra. Against the said judgment, Shri Ghanshyam Dogra preferred Special Leave Petition No. 17086 of 2010 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed summarily vide order dated 05.08.2011. Shri Ghanshyam Dogra thereafter, preferred review petition for reviewing the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2010 before this Court. Same was dismissed on 01.09.2011 against which Special Leave Petition was preferred before Hon’ble Supreme Court, which also met the same fate and consequently, was dismissed vide order dated 08.11.2011. Thereafter, decree holder filed Execution Case no. 1 of 2011 “Jiyorjina Chiu Vs. Ghanshyam Dogra” before the Court of Judge SCC/ District Judge, Dehradun, in which notices were issued and thereafter, execution proceeded. On 15.02.2012, revisionist came to know about filing of the aforesaid SCC Execution Case when in the absence of revisionist some person from the Court came to his property and thereafter, he made inquiries by engaging a counsel who on 15.02.2012 inspected the file of execution case and came to know about the proceedings of SCC Suit no. 53 of 1990, its decision, judgment of this Court and orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is alleged that at that moment, revisionist came to know about filing of the proceedings and its contest by Sri Ghanshyam Dogra, his real brother and till then he was not having any knowledge of the aforesaid proceedings. Thereafter, the revisionist filed his objections under Order 21 Rule 97 Code of Civil Procedure 1908 read with Section 17 of Provincial Small Cause Court Act 1887 before the Court of Judge SCC/District Judge, Dehradun against Execution Case no. 1 of 2011, which was registered as SCC Misc. Case 1 of 2012 “Jasbir Singh Vs. Jiyorjina Chiu”. Revisionist contended before the Court below that his father initially took the premises in question on rent for 11 months from Smt. Maryle Francis through her attorney holder Smt. Patricia Francis and on 22.10.1987, his father Babu Ram vacated the premises under his tenancy. Case 1 of 2012 “Jasbir Singh Vs. Jiyorjina Chiu”. Revisionist contended before the Court below that his father initially took the premises in question on rent for 11 months from Smt. Maryle Francis through her attorney holder Smt. Patricia Francis and on 22.10.1987, his father Babu Ram vacated the premises under his tenancy. On 01.01.1989, revisionist’s father Sri Babu Ram, well within the knowledge of Smt. Maryle Francis and her sister attorney holder Smt. Patricia Francis, entered into property in question as owner against the wishes of Smt. Maryle Francis and Patricia Francis well within the knowledge of entire world and maintained his possession and during his life time, no proceedings were initiated for his eviction by Smt. Maryle Francis and he perfected his title over the property in question by way of adverse possession. Revisionist was residing in the premises in question with his father and after his death on 11.10.2003, revisionist became the owner of the property in question. Revisionist brother Ghanshyam Dogra was not residing in premises in question and was not the tenant and he was residing in THDC, Dehradun and he was in collusion with decree holder and was having strained relationship with him because of which he colluded with decree holder and consequently, prayed that it may be declared that decree passed in SCC suit no. 53/1990 is not binding upon him and cannot be executed against him. 3. On the other hand, the decree holder filed her objection in SCC Misc. Case no. 1/2012 contending therein that third party Jasbir Singh is in collusion with judgment debtor and filed the application to delay the execution proceedings. The matter attained its finality upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court and objection under Order 21 Rule 97 are liable to be dismissed. Revisionist filed documents along with affidavit paper no. 11C in support of his contention in which he filed identity card issued by Election Commission of India showing the address of premises in question dated 01.01.1995, another identity card issued by Election Commission of India dated 01.01.2007, copy of saving bank passbook showing revisionist’s residence at the premises in question, copy of water tax bill, ration card and gas connection. The learned District Judge, Dehradun, vide judgment dated 18.05.2012, rejected the objection filed by revisionist under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C., against which the instant civil revision is being filed by revisionist/applicant. 4. Mr. The learned District Judge, Dehradun, vide judgment dated 18.05.2012, rejected the objection filed by revisionist under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C., against which the instant civil revision is being filed by revisionist/applicant. 4. Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the revisionist submitted that the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.05.2012 passed by learned District Judge, Dehradun is not according to law, since he dismissed the objection filed by the revisionist without framing point for determination which was mandatory requirement by SCC Court prior to passing a judgment, amounting to a decree, the impugned judgment and decree is not a judgment within the meaning of Section 2 (9) of Code of Civil Procedure and neither the decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) Code of Civil Procedure. He argued that the impugned judgment and decree is wholly without jurisdiction and not according to law, inasmuch as, while dismissing the objections under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. of revisionist, it was imperative on the part of learned Court below to have recorded a specific finding on the point that revisionist/objector have no independent right or title over the property in question and he stands under the shoes of judgment debtor and is claiming his right through judgment debtor and as such, decree is binding upon him, inasmuch as, against the judgment debtor. In the absence of such specific finding, impugned judgment and decree is illegal and without jurisdiction. He argued that objection under Order 21 Rule 97 are a substitute for a suit and legislature in its wisdom while incorporating amendments in Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in the year 1976 keeping in mind the multiplicity of litigation by filing separate suit by a third party claiming his right over property, inserted the provision that objections under Order 21 Rule 97 will amount to a suit, it will be tried as a suit and its adjudication will amount to a decree. He submitted that bare perusal of Order 21 Rule 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102 & 103 of the aforesaid provisions reveals that a person in possession of a decree can object the execution of a decree by filing objection under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. He submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Srinath Vs. Rajesh, reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court weekly page 1619, Brahmdeo Chaudhary Vs. Rajesh, reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court weekly page 1619, Brahmdeo Chaudhary Vs. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal & another, reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court weekly 685, Tanzeem-E-Sufia Vs. B.B. Haliman and others, reported in 2002 (3) Civil Court Cases page 391 and Orissa High Court in case of Sasmita Pattnaik & others Vs. Sunanda Patnaik, reported in 2009 (4) Civil Court Cases page 793, clarified the intention and import of provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 CPC and held that it is not necessary that a person after losing possession can only maintain the objections under Order 21 Rule 97, but he can file the same being in possession stating that he is claiming his right independent irrespective of that of judgment debtor and the Court is bound to adjudicate the same. Objections filed under Order 21 Rule 97 leads to an adjudication which is being done under Rule 101 of Order 21 in which all questions including question relating to right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties to proceedings and relevant to the adjudication of the application shall be determined by the Court and the Court shall be deemed to have jurisdiction to decide such question. Order 21 Rule 103 reveals that an adjudication/determination done by the Court on objections filed under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C., under Order 21 Rule 101 C.P.C., have the same force as if it were a decree and subject to the same condition as to an appeal. He submitted that from a bare perusal of provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 to 103 C.P.C., a clear legal position emerges out that objection under Order 21 Rule 97 are a substitute for a suit and are to be tried as a suit and determination made thereon amounts to a decree. For the purpose of adjudication and determination, it is incumbent upon the Court dealing with the objection under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. to frame point for determination if adjudicating Court is a SCC Court, and issues in case adjudication Court is original civil Court. But the fact remains that adjudication has to be made after framing point for determination. For the purpose of adjudication and determination, it is incumbent upon the Court dealing with the objection under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. to frame point for determination if adjudicating Court is a SCC Court, and issues in case adjudication Court is original civil Court. But the fact remains that adjudication has to be made after framing point for determination. He further submitted that the legal position is further clarified from reading the definition of judgment given in Section 2(9) C.P.C. and definition of decree given Section 2(2) C.P.C. He submitted that from perusal of the definition of judgment, it reveals that judgment means statement given by a Judge on grounds of decree or order and decree means formal expression of adjudication which so far as regards the Court expressing it conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that in the present case, objections under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. are being filed against SCC Execution before the SCC Court and provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are duly applicable to the Court of Small Causes in view of Section 17 of Provincial Small Cause Court Act. He submitted that Order 21 Rule 97 to 103, Section 2(2), Section 2(9) and Order 20 Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure and Section 17 of Provincial Small Cause Court Act 1887 suggests that objections under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. are to be decided as a suit, giving proper opportunity of leading evidence to the parties in support of their contention and judgment should be based on point for determination which amounts to a decree. He contended that the impugned judgment and decree is not in consonance with Order 20 Rule 4 and 5 C.P.C., as such the same is not a judgment and decree under the law. He argued that revision applicant filed a application paper no. 12-C before the Court below for framing of issues/points for determination in the case and then to proceed further. He contended that Revision applicant also filed application no. 12-C before the Court below for producing evidence, but learned Court below committed grave error of law and jurisdiction in not passing any order on the said applications. 12-C before the Court below for framing of issues/points for determination in the case and then to proceed further. He contended that Revision applicant also filed application no. 12-C before the Court below for producing evidence, but learned Court below committed grave error of law and jurisdiction in not passing any order on the said applications. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance upon the judgments reported in 1993 (1) Allahabad Rent Cases page 248 Kameshwar Dayal Vs.Banda (dead) through his LRs and another, Akhil Kumar Jain Vs. Smt. Sharda Devi & others, reported in 2011 (29) Lucknow Civil Decisions page 910, Bhagwan Bai Vs. Chiranji Lal & another, reported in 2009 (3) Civil Court Cases page 139, Subhash Cahndra & another Vs. Phoolwati & others, reported in 2009(4) Civil Court cases page 151, Janardan Singh Jaiswal Vs. IV Additional District Judge Mirjapur & others, reported in 2005 (23) Lucknow Civil Decisions page 406, Ayappan Pillai Vs Ravindranathan, reported in 1999 vol.2 Civil Court cases page 228, N.S.S. Naraina Sarma & others Vs. M/s Goldstone Export Pvt. Ltd & others, reported in 2002 (1) Civil Court cases 241, Babu Lal Vs. Raj Kumar & others, reported in 1996(3) SCC page 154 and Vinod Kuma Mishra & another Vs Additional District Judge Faizabad & others, reported in 2010 (1) Civil Court Cases page 574. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that in the case in hand, admittedly, learned District Judge, Dehradun, while dealing with objections filed by revisionist under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C., fell in error of law as well as jurisdiction, inasmuch as, he failed to frame necessary points for determination which were arising to be determined/ adjudicated and proceeded with the decision of the case in summary manner. He contended that it was incumbent upon the learned District Judge, Dehradun to have framed point for determination and to adjudicate upon them and record its finding and then to pass judgment which would have amounted to decree, as such the impugned judgment and decree is not according to law and deserves to be set aside on this ground and matter deserves to be remanded back to the Court of learned District Judge for a decision afresh, after framing point for determination and granting of opportunity of leading evidence to parties. Revisionist filed his objections under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. with the specific averments that he is owner of property in question. He specifically pleaded that his father entered into property in question as of his independent title on 01.01.1989 and perfected his title by way of adverse possession as no suit for his eviction based on title was filed by earlier owner and after his death, petitioner acquired ownership rights over the property in question and is enjoying the property independently and that judgment debtor though is his real brother but relationship amongst them is strain and due to which judgment debtor colluded with decree holder. He further pleaded that judgment debtor is not residing in premises in question and is residing in THDC, Dehradun. There was no specific denial towards these averments of revisionist on behalf of decree holder and as such, the said averments are deemed to be admitted in view of Order 8 Rule 3 & 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgments passed in the case of H. Seshadri Vs K.R. Natrajan & another, reported in 2003 (3) Civil Court cases page 1 (SC), Vinod Kuma Mishra & another Vs Additional District Judge Faizabad & others, reported in 2010 (1) Civil Court Cases page 574. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist also submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that judgment debtor is real brother of revisionist and contested the proceedings till the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but at the same time it is to be noted that he has not brought the correct facts before the Court that he is not in possession of the property in question and is not tenant and that his father was the owner of property and thereafter, revisionist is the owner of property in question. The revisionist filed his objections with the specific case that he is owner in possession of the property in question, after the death of his father, who acquired the property by way of adverse possession and during his lifetime, no suit for eviction, based on title, was filed by erstwhile owner against him. At the same time, finding of learned District Judge, that decree passed in SCC Suit no. At the same time, finding of learned District Judge, that decree passed in SCC Suit no. 53 of 1990 cannot be executed against the revisionist as neither the revisionist nor his father were parties to SCC suit no. 53 of 1990, is relevant. He argued that the fact that the judgment debtor contested the matter till the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be a ground to negative the claim of the revisionist which is based on a different fact and a specific ground of his ownership which ought to have been adjudicated independently and a finding to that effect ought to have been recorded by learned District Judge that revisionist is bound by the decree passed in SCC Suit no. 53 of 1990, inasmuch as, the judgment debtor and that he is not claiming any independent rights and steps under the shoes of judgment debtor. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the revisionist relied upon the judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Wahid Vs. Mohd. Anwar, reported in 2009 (4) ALJ page 225, in which the Court held that a Small Cause Court is duly empowered to entertain objection under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. and question of title raised can be gone into in these proceedings and that a revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Court Act is maintainable against the impugned judgment and decree. He prayed that the present revision may be allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.5.2012 passed by Judge SCC/District Judge, Dehradun in Misc. Case no. 1 of 2012 “Jasbir Singh Vs. Jiyorjina Chiu” be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the Court of Judge SCC/District Judge, Dehradun for a decision afresh, after framing point for determination and providing opportunity of leading evidence to parties and recording specific finding thereupon. 8. Respondents came up with the case that one Ms. Patricia Francis was the landlady/owner of the property known as Maryle Cottage situated in Clement town, Dehradun. On 10th November, 1987, Shri Ghanshyam Dogra (real brother of the revisionist) was let out a portion of the aforesaid property, comprising of five rooms and a kitchen at a monthly rent of `1200/- (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said premises’). Shri Ghanshyam Dogra paid rent only for one month and in spite of repeated demands did not pay any further rent. Shri Ghanshyam Dogra paid rent only for one month and in spite of repeated demands did not pay any further rent. Having no option, Ms. Patricia Francis terminated the tenancy of Ghanshyam Dogra vide notice dated 30-07-1990. The said notice was duly served on Ghanshyam Dogra and was duly replied by him vide reply notice dated 27-09-1990. Thereafter, she filed a suit for recovery of rent and ejectment in the Court of District Judge, Dehradun bearing S.C.C. Suit no.53 of 1990. Since delaying tactics were being played by Ghanshyam Dogra, Ms. Patricia Francis filed Writ Petitions before the High Court at Allahabad and ultimately, vide order dated 09-08-1999, the Allahabad High Court directed the lower Court to decide the case at an early date. Suit was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 27-07-2004, against which Ms. Patricia Francis filed a Civil Revision bearing no. 50/2004 before this Court. During the pendency of the said revision, Ms. Patricia Francis expired and after her death, the present respondents were substituted as revisionist in Civil Revision No.50/2004 “Ms. Patricia Francis vs. Ghanshyam Dogra”. The said revision was allowed by this Court vide order dated 06-04-2010 and the judgment and decree dated 27-07-2004 passed by the trial Court was set aside and the suit was decreed with costs for the eviction and also for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profit @ ` 1200/- per month. However, Ghanshyam Dogra was allowed 45 days’ time to handover the possession of the said premises. In spite of expiry of 45 days’, Ghanshyam Dogra did not handover the vacant possession of the said premises to the respondents. Thus, having no option left the respondents filed the S.C.C. Execution bearing case no. 1/2011, Georgina Chew & another Vs. Ghanshyam Dogra in the Court of District Judge, Dehradun. During the pendency of the execution, Ghanshyam Dogra filed reviews before this Court and Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but every time his applications/petitions were rejected. The District Judge, Dehradun, finding the case of the respondents to be genuine, issued the writ of possession against Ghanshyam Dogra. The Court Amin went on the site to take the possession of the premises from Ghanshyam Dogra and hand it over to the respondents, but on the said date the premises were locked and the possession could not be handed over to the respondents. The Court Amin went on the site to take the possession of the premises from Ghanshyam Dogra and hand it over to the respondents, but on the said date the premises were locked and the possession could not be handed over to the respondents. Therefore, the Court Amin moved an application before the District Judge, Dehradun to permit him to break/ open the locks and handover the possession of the said premises to the respondents. Meanwhile, the said application moved by the Court Amin was pending disposal, the revisionist filed objections under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C., which were registered as Misc. S.C.C. case no. 1/2012 Jasbir Singh vs. Georgina Chew & another. The said objections were rejected by the District Judge, Dehradun vide impugned order dated 18.05.2012 and the District Judge, Dehradun, vide order dated 18.05.2012 passed in S.C.C. Execution No.1/2011, allowed the Court Amin to break/open the locks and hand over the possession of the said premises to the respondent. 9. It is further contended by the respondents that Ghanshyam Dogra was and is in possession of the said premises and he contested the entire litigation upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The revisionist was never a party to the litigation because he has nothing to do with the said premises. It is further submitted that revisionist has filed his objections alleging that his father, Babu Ram entered in the premises in the year 1989 and thereafter, after a lapse of 12 years, his father became the owner of the said premises through adverse possession. The litigation to the said premises started in the year 1990, therefore, even by the wildest stretch of imagination, the father of the revisionist cannot become the owner of the premises through adverse possession. It is submitted that the lower Court has rightly rejected the objections of the revisionist after strict compliance of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 to 101 C.P.C. The Court below has considered and scrutinized each and every document filed by the revisionist and has given a detailed finding with regard to each document. It is submitted that the lower Court has rightly rejected the objections of the revisionist after strict compliance of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 to 101 C.P.C. The Court below has considered and scrutinized each and every document filed by the revisionist and has given a detailed finding with regard to each document. It is stated that the revisionist has miserably failed to prove his possession in the said premises and has even held that the revisionist was unable to prove his possession in the said premises and has further held that the revisionist was unable to explain the fact as to how the said premises devolved only upon the revisionist after the death of his father Babu Ram, who as per the revisionist, became the owner in possession of the said premises through adverse possession. It is submitted that the litigation is pending between the respondents and Ghanshyam Dogra since the year 1990 and since then, summons have been sent a number of times in the name of Ghanshyam Dogra on the address of the said premises, but there is not even a single report or record either of the Process Server or of the Postman with regard to the fact that Ghanshyam Dogra does not reside on the said address. It is further submitted that the entire story has been fabricated by the revisionist to cause undue benefit to the judgment debtor, Ghanshyam Dogra, real brother of the revisionist. The revisionist has no right, title and interest whatsoever in the said premises and he has filed the objections and the present revision before this Court on the instigation of Ghanshaym Dogra, who is the judgment debtor in S.C.C. Execution no.1/2011 and is his real brother. When Ghanshyam Dogra failed to get any order in his favour from any of the Courts including the Hon’ble Supreme Court, he, in collusion with his brother, filed the objections before the lower Court and the present revision before this Court. Since the respondents are senior citizens and the small amount of pension, which they receive, is their only source of livelihood. Ghanshayam Dogra is an advocate by profession and is fully aware of all the delay tactics and has managed to linger on the proceeding of a S.C.C. suit for past 22 years. Since the respondents are senior citizens and the small amount of pension, which they receive, is their only source of livelihood. Ghanshayam Dogra is an advocate by profession and is fully aware of all the delay tactics and has managed to linger on the proceeding of a S.C.C. suit for past 22 years. It is submitted that the respondents are involved in the aforesaid litigation since 1990 and till date the judgment debtor is making them run from pillar to post for justice. 10. Mr. A. Rab, Senior Advocate for the respondents submitted that the revisionist has filed this petition under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 (hereinafter called a S.C.C Act), whereas the impugned order of the learned District Judge was passed under Order 21 Rule 97 of the C.P.C, as the revisionist had objected to the execution proceedings under the said Order 21 Rule 97 of the C.P.C. He submitted that the S.C.C suit has already been decided and has become final. The revisionist has not come to this Court against an order passed under the S.C.C Act, but an order passed under C.P.C. He submitted that Order 21 Rules 97 to 103 of the C.P.C, provides the remedy available to an applicant aggrieved by an order under Order 21 Rule 97 is that of an appeal, and not revision, as an order under Order 21 Rule 97 is a deemed decree under Order 21 Rule 101 read with Order 21 Rule 103. Hence, this revision is not maintainable. He argued that for an applicant to object to execution proceedings under Order 21 Rule 97, the requirement of law is that the applicant proves that he has an independent right to the premises. The revisionist, in the present case, has failed to prove that he has an independent right of possession to the said premises and is merely delaying the process of law in collusion with his brother Shri Ghanshyam Dogra. He submitted that revisionist’s claim that he is in possession of the said premises and that claim is fabricated and false. In fact, the revisionist has received summons through publication and the summons could not be served upon him on the said premises as it was always locked. It was after several tries that the summons had to be served upon him through publication. In fact, the revisionist has received summons through publication and the summons could not be served upon him on the said premises as it was always locked. It was after several tries that the summons had to be served upon him through publication. If the revisionist was actually in possession of the said premises, the summons would have been served upon him there. Or at best, some family member of the revisionist would have been present on at least one of the occasions when the summons were to be served on the revisionist. Given that the revisionist is the real brother of Shri Ghanshyam Dogra, it would not be unreasonable to presume that the revisionist was aware of the legal proceedings related to the said premises as the proceedings went on for almost 22 years. If the revisionist had an independent right to the said premises, he should have come forward earlier and stated his claim. Clearly, the revisionist is hand-in-glove with his brother and both of them are abusing the process of law. Therefore, the revisionist has not come with clean hands before this Court and he is there just as a cover for his brother Shri Ghanshyam Dogra. He contended that the revisionist has colluded with Shri Ghanshyam Dogra in order to further delay proceedings and abuse the process of law. He argued that the respondents have been fighting this case since 1990, initially through Ms. Patricia Fancis and now as her legal heirs. He contended that Shri Ghanshyam Dogra has not paid a single penny of rent till today and by misusing his position as a lawyer has abused the process of law and harassed a senior citizen and her heirs. Shri Ghanshyam Dogra has made the respondents run from pillar to post to get their property back and evict the tenant. He contended that the claim of the revisionist is false and vexatious and runs foul to the principles of justice and hence, liable to be dismissed with special costs to the respondents. Learned Senior Advocate also dealt with the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that case law cited is not applicable in the present case. 11. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the papers available on record. 12. S.C.C. Suit no.53 of 1990 was instituted by one Km. 11. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the papers available on record. 12. S.C.C. Suit no.53 of 1990 was instituted by one Km. Patricia Francis against her tenant Ghanshyam Dogra for his eviction. Suit was dismissed against which revision was filed before the High Court. In the meantime, Km. Patricia Francis passed away and was substituted by her legal representatives. High Court allowed the revision, set aside the judgment and decree of Small Cause Court and directed eviction of tenant Ghanshyam Dogra. S.L.P. filed by Ghanshyam Dogra was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed review petition, that too was dismissed against which S.L.P. was filed and same also met the same fate. Thereafter, decree holder filed Execution Case no.1 of 2011 before the Court of Judge SCC/District Judge, Derhadun, in which notices were issued and thereafter, execution proceeded. Decree could not be executed as objection under Order 21 Rule 97 was filed. Once matter stands concluded by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, nothing remains to be adjudicated by the trial Court about the tenancy and eviction of tenant. I also find that the learned Judge S.C.C./District Judge, Dehradun has decided relevant points after discussion. I do not find any illegality in the same. Earlier landlady died during the pendency of proceedings. Now, 23 years have passed from the date of filing of S.C.C. suit and the landlord is not in a position to take possession in spite of final decision from the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is unbelievable that revisionist could not know about the pendency of case for more than twenty years when proceedings were against his father and own brother and came to know about the same in the month of February, 2012. Objection under Order 21 Rule 97 has been filed to delay the eviction. Ghanshyam Dogra is a brother of the revisionist. He contested the case upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, Ghanshyam Dogra, being actual tenant, is in possession of the premises in question. The revisionist cannot be said in possession over the premises in question. Though, revisionist claimed his right on the basis of adverse possession, but he did not say anything about the legal heirs of late Babu Ram. Even his own brother Ghanshyam Dogra (tenant) was not made a party. The revisionist cannot be said in possession over the premises in question. Though, revisionist claimed his right on the basis of adverse possession, but he did not say anything about the legal heirs of late Babu Ram. Even his own brother Ghanshyam Dogra (tenant) was not made a party. Ghanshyam Dogra contested the case upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but he never claimed title on the basis of adverse possession. Therefore, it also cannot be said that revisionist acquired right by way of adverse possession. By looking into entire facts of the case, I have no hesitation to say that this is clear cut abuse of process of law. 13. Judgments cited by the counsel for the revisionist are of no help to the revisionist due to following reasons: (i) Eviction case against real brother of the revisionist in respect of property in question attained finality after judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. (ii) In the facts and circumstances of the present case, plea of adverse possession is taken to make out a case to entertain objection under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C., knowing fully that after the death of Babu Ram, only Ghanshyam Dogra (brother of the revisionist) was occupying the premises in question as tenant. (iii) Respondents are landlord/owner of the premises in question. (iv) Learned District Judge decided relevant points after discussion. (v) Revisionist has not come up before the Court with clean hands and application was filed to delay the execution proceedings. (vi) This is abuse of process of law. 14. Judgment passed by the learned District Judge is affirmed. Revision is dismissed. 15. No order as to costs.