Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.:-- This revision petition is directed against order dated 31.1.2013 (Annexure P-2) of the Executing Court vide which the objections under Order XXI Rule 97 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the objectors, petitioners herein, for recalling of the warrants of possession issued in the proceedings pending for execution of judgment and decree dated 3.12.2003 passed by the court of Sh. B.S. Deol, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, with further declaration that the said judgment and decree was not binding on them as they were owners in possession of the suit property, were dismissed. 2. In the third party objections (Annexure P-1), it was claimed by the objectors, petitioners herein, that they were owners in possession of the property of decree under execution and thus, were not bound by the decree and warrants of possession against them could not have been issued by the Executing Court, in execution of the said decree. 3. Hearing has been provided to the counsel for the parties while going through the paper book. 4. When questioned, the petitioners have not been able to disclose as to how they have any independent right, title or interest set apart different and distinct from their mother Smt. Bhan Kaur, who is the judgment-debtor and was defendant in the suit which had been preferred by plaintiff/decreeholder Jagjiwan Singh. 5. It would be relevant to mention here that mother of the objectors, petitioners herein, from whom any right, title or interest in the land flows to them, had contested the claim of decree-holder tooth and nail but was defeated at the legal hustings. Smt. Bhan Kaur is widow of Babu Singh who was in cultivating possession of the land. He had died somewhere in 1995. The Will propounded by the petitioners from Babu Singh to support their cultivating possession was not heard of even in whispers during the entire proceedings contested by Smt. Bhan Kaur. 6. Merely because Regular Second Appeal No.878 of 2012 was pending in this Court filed at the instance of Smt. Bhan Kaur mother of the objectors-petitioners ipso-facto is no ground to allow the objection petition preferred by her sons claiming ownership and possession in derogation to the claim of their mother Smt. Bhan Kaur, whereas they have no independent claim, right, title or interest. Concedingly, by now, the aforesaid RSA No.878 of 2012 has also been decided on 12.5.2014 against Smt. Bhan Kaur where even plea of ownership by adverse possession taken by her, was rejected. 7. It is interesting to note that the objectors have taken the plea of permissive possession as successors of Babu Singh through Smt. Bhan Kaur being his widow, whereas adverse possession was claimed on the ground that even if there was no proof that Smt. Bhan Kaur was wife of Babu Singh, then her possession in the suit property is to be treated adverse against the interest of true owners. Both these pleas taken by Mrs. Bhan Kaur, mother of the petitioners-objectors through whom they claim their right, title or interest were rejected in the aforesaid Regular Second Appeal by this Court and the same is not disputed. 8. Merely because the objectors-petitioners were not parties to the suit ipso-facto is no ground necessarily to decide their objections as a separate suit i.e. by taking evidence. So far as entries in favour of the objectors, petitioners herein, in the Khasra-Girdawris are concerned, the same were not accepted in evidence by the lower court and rightly so, as those were procured at the back of the plaintiff in connivance with their mother Smt. Bhan Kaur and that too during pendency of the suit. 9. It is a conceded fact that the suit filed on 21.12.1998 by original plaintiff Jagjiwan Singh against Smt. Bhan Kaur was decreed in his favour on 3.12.2003 whereby directions had been issued to the defendant Smt. Bhan Kaur to hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Civil Appeal No.16 of 9.2.2004 preferred by Smt. Bhan Kaur was dismissed on 15.11.2011. 10. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Babu Singh had died issueless. These objectors claim themselves to be his adopted sons. Status of possession, whether it was legal or illegal with Babu Singh, cannot be changed. The plaintiff has already been held to be owner of the suit land. Neither claim of Smt. Bhan Kaur nor of the objectors has been proved either as owners nor as possessors much less lawful of the suit land. 11. When we examine the entire aspect, claim of the objectors, petitioners herein, regarding ownership is primarily of adverse possession. 12. The plaintiff has already been held to be owner of the suit land. Neither claim of Smt. Bhan Kaur nor of the objectors has been proved either as owners nor as possessors much less lawful of the suit land. 11. When we examine the entire aspect, claim of the objectors, petitioners herein, regarding ownership is primarily of adverse possession. 12. Counsel for the respondent/decree-holder seeking support from Naresh Kumar Versus Narinder Singh and another (2012-1) PLR 119 (P&H) has urged that it is not each and every objection, howsoever frivolous and substance-less it may be, would require adjudication by framing issues and leading of evidence. In Madan Lal and another Versus Ram Pal and another 2010(1) Rent Control Reporter 382 (P&H), it is held that the tenant of land claiming ownership by way of adverse possession forfeits his status as a tenant in a suit filed by owner for dispossession and no notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is required to be given. 13. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances as mentioned earlier, the impugned order dated 31.1.2013 (Annexure P-2) does not suffer from any factual or legal error and the objections (Annexure P-1) were rightly dismissed by the Executing Court. 14. Sequelly, no ground to interfere with the impugned order is made out. Affirming the impugned order, this petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.