Judgment Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.7.2011 rendered by the Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 47-N/2004. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that predecessor-in-interest of respondent-decree holder Bir Singh instituted a Civil Suit No. 159/1977 before the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Nurpur. The suit was decreed on 23.9.1982. Thereafter, judgment debtor No.2 Tilak Raj filed an appeal before the District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala against the judgment and decree dated 23.9.1982. The appeal was dismissed by the District Judge on 8.9.1996. Decree holder Bir Singh filed an Execution Petition in the court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Nurpur on 13.6.1986. The Sub Judge 1st Class, Nurpur issued warrant of possession. The Field Kanungo went to the spot for delivery of possession. The warrants were returned by the Tehsildar, Nurpur vide order dated 10.9.1996 to the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Nurpur. Appellant filed objections petition. The objections were dismissed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Nurpur on 24.2.1996. Appellant-society preferred Civil Revision No.56/96 before this Court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant-society sought withdrawal of Civil Revision with liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law on 8.9.1996. 3. Thereafter, again appellant-society filed Objection Petition No.4/2004 on 30.10.1999. Reply was filed by the decree holder. Issues were framed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 4.5.2002. He dismissed the objections vide order dated 7.5.2004. Appellant filed an appeal against the order dated 7.5.2004 before the Additional District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. He dismissed the same on 25.7.2011. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. It was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. “Whether the appellant society having not been impleaded as party in the civil suit No.159/77 titled as Bir Singh versus Dharam Singh the appellant is not bound by the same nor this judgment and decree is executable against him. 2. Whether the appellant society has raised the plea of acquiring title by way of adverse possession and this claim has been properly pleaded and proved? 3. Whether the appellant society being in possession of the property in suit therefore, the appellant cannot be dispossessed except through due process of law? 4. Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to decide the present lis.” 4. Mr. 3. Whether the appellant society being in possession of the property in suit therefore, the appellant cannot be dispossessed except through due process of law? 4. Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to decide the present lis.” 4. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate, on the basis of substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that the appellant-society ought to have been impleaded as party in Civil Suit No.159/1977. He has further contended that the plea of adverse possession raised by the appellant-objector has not been correctly decided by the courts below. He has also contended that the society being in possession of suit property cannot be dispossessed without due process of law. He has lastly contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate Civil Suit No.159/1977. 5. Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Advocate has supported the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala dated 25.7.2011. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 7. Since all the substantial questions of law are interlinked and interconnected, the same are taken up together for determination to avoid repetition of discussion of evidence. 8. The suit, as noticed hereinabove, was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent Sh. Bir Singh for possession against Dharam Singh and Tilak Raj. Issues were framed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Nurpur on 4.11.1978. Para 10 of the judgment reads as under: “10. Similarly, the documentary evidence produced by the contesting defendant is also of no avail. Admittedly, the contesting defendant has not been inducted as a tenant on the suit land by the landlord in 1973. Rather, as mentioned above, it is a peculiar case of a tenant alleged, inducting another tenant in his place without the consent of the landlord which, procedure, to my mind is unknown to the law. Otherwise also, the surrender of tenancy by the plaintiff in favour of the contesting defendant has not been proved. So far as alleged lease deed by defendant No.1 in favour of contesting defendant is concerned that has yet to see the light of the day. Moreover, that is also not binding on the plaintiff for the reasons stated above. Therefore, the entry of the name of the contesting defendant in Kharif 1973 in Khasra Girdawari for the first time is without any basis.” 9. Suit was decreed on 23.9.1982. Moreover, that is also not binding on the plaintiff for the reasons stated above. Therefore, the entry of the name of the contesting defendant in Kharif 1973 in Khasra Girdawari for the first time is without any basis.” 9. Suit was decreed on 23.9.1982. The appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 23.9.1982 was dismissed by the District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. The objection petition filed by the appellant before the Sub Judge 1st Class, Nurpur was dismissed. The appellant came to this Court by way of Civil Revision. The Civil Revision was withdrawn with liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Appellant has again filed the present appeal. 10. OW-1 Suneel Chaudhary, Assistant of District Food Supply Controller, Dharamshala has proved licence dated 14.3.1975. The licence was renewed upto 3.3.2002. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that there was no mention in the application of society whether Munshi Ram son of Mehtab Singh, resident of Raja Khasa, was the owner of the suit land. He has shown his inability to disclose whether any verification with regard to ownership of land was made by the office at the time of issuance of licence. 11. OW-2 Sant Ram has deposed that he has inspected the spot on 21.8.1986 and submitted report Ex.OW-2/A and returned the warrant of possession unexecuted. He has not located Khasra No. 179 on the spot. He did not remember who was in actual possession of the suit land. 12. OW-3 Baldev Singh has proved the registration certificate of the society Ex.OW-3/A, bye-laws Ex.OW-3/2 and audit report Ex.OW-3/3 to Ex.OW-3/48 pertaining to the years 1973 to 2001. He has admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of audit, it was not verified that on whose land brick kiln was installed. He has also admitted that judgment debtor No.2 Tilak Raj was member of the society. 13. OW-4 Gulshan Lal has deposed that the parties were known to him. The suit land was 36-37 kanals and its old Khasra number was 179. The society was running business over the suit land since 1975. He has denied the suggestion that Tilak Raj was in possession over the suit land. He was not aware that warrant of possession was issued in favour of Bir Singh. 14. OW-5 Om Parkash has deposed that he knew the parties. He has seen the suit land. The society was running business over the suit land since 1975. He has denied the suggestion that Tilak Raj was in possession over the suit land. He was not aware that warrant of possession was issued in favour of Bir Singh. 14. OW-5 Om Parkash has deposed that he knew the parties. He has seen the suit land. According to him, land in dispute was possessed by the society. He has admitted that village Raja Khasa is a separate village. He has never visited village Raja Khasa. He has also admitted that at the time of Girdawari and Jamabandi, physical possession of parties is recorded. He has denied that Tilak Raj was in possession over the land in dispute. 15. Pradhan of the society Dharam Paul has appeared as OW-6. He has deposed that the suit land was about 36-37 kanals. There were sheds on the same. Brick kiln was started by the society in the year 1975. Bir Singh has never made the society as party in the Civil Suit. According to him, society has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. He was not aware about the earlier objections filed by the society. He was not aware about the Civil Revision preferred against the dismissal of earlier objections. He has admitted that judgment debtor No.2 was son of his maternal uncle. He has denied that Tilk Raj was recorded as owner in the revenue record. He has denied that Bir Singh was recorded as “Gair Morusi” over the suit land. 16. Decree holder has examined DH/RW-2 Sh. S.P. Gupta. He has proved the written statement filed in Civil Suit as Ex.DH/RW-2. There is no averment in the written statement qua the possession of the appellant-society. According to RW-3/DH, the appellant-society never remained in possession of the suit land. 17. OW-1 Suneel Chaudhary has only proved licence issued on 14.3.1975. He has admitted in his cross-examination that it was not stated in the application that whether Munshi Ram son of Mehtab Singh resident of Raja Khasa was the owner of the suit land. He has shown his inability whether any verification with regard to ownership of land was made by the office at the time of issuance of licence. OW-2 Sant Ram and OW-3 Baldev Singh have not proved that the society was in possession over the suit land. He has shown his inability whether any verification with regard to ownership of land was made by the office at the time of issuance of licence. OW-2 Sant Ram and OW-3 Baldev Singh have not proved that the society was in possession over the suit land. OW-4 Gulshan Lal is not resident of village Raja Khasa. He could not disclose Khasra number even of his land. OW-5 Om Parkash has admitted that he has never visited village Raja Khasa. He has also admitted that at the time of entries of Girdawari and Jamabandi, physical possession of parties is recorded by the revenue office. 18. Appellant-objector has not led any tangible evidence to establish the plea of adverse possession. The plea of adverse possession has to be pleaded and it is required to be proved by leading cogent evidence. Pradhan of appellant-society OW-6 Dharam Paul has not admitted the ownership of decree holder as well as judgment debtor No.2. Since the ownership of decree holder is not admitted the question of ownership by way of adverse possession does not arise. Even commencement of adverse possession has not been stated by the appellant-society. 19. According to Objections Petition No.1/1996, the brick kiln was installed in the year 1997. Surprisingly, in the Objections Petition under consideration, it is stated that the brick kiln was set up in the year 1975. There is no revenue entry recorded in favour of appellant-society. Settlement of village Raja Khasa has taken place in the year 1983-84 as per Annexure RW-3/DH. In case the society was in possession of the suit land, entry to this effect ought to have been made in the revenue record at the time of settlement. 20. It is also not proved by OW-2 Sant Ram, Field Kanungo that appellant-society was in possession of the suit property. Rather there is connivance by appellant-society and judgment debtor No.2 Tilak Raj. He is maternal uncle of Dharam Paul, Pradhan of the society. OW-3 Baldev Singh has admitted that judgment debtor Tilak Raj was member of the society as per record. OW-6 Dharam Paul has also admitted his relationship with judgment debtor No.2. The objector had earlier filed objections under order 21 rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as is evident from order dated 24.2.1996 and again the objections have been preferred under order 21 rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. OW-6 Dharam Paul has also admitted his relationship with judgment debtor No.2. The objector had earlier filed objections under order 21 rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as is evident from order dated 24.2.1996 and again the objections have been preferred under order 21 rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It amounts to gross misuse of process of law. Rather, second set up of objections was not maintainable when the same had earlier been adjudicated, as rightly observed by the learned Additional District Judge. The appellant-objector has failed to prove its possession. 21. Bir Singh was the tenant of the land under one Sh. Dharam Singh. According to him, he was forcibly ejected in the month of October, 1977 by defendant No.2 Tilak Raj. He was still the tenant of the suit land. He was never ejected by Dharam Singh nor relinquished of his own. Defendant No.2 Tilak Raj has set up the plea that plaintiff has relinquished the possession in his favour for consideration of Rs. 600/- and also executed the lease deed. DW-1, in Civil Suit No. 159/1977, has admitted that there was no writing with regard to relinquishment of tenancy. A specific issue was framed by the Sub Judge 1st Class in Civil Suit No.159/1977 whether the civil suit was maintainable or not. The Sub Judge 1st Class had the jurisdiction to decide Civil Suit No.159/1977 and it cannot be said that the matter was required to be decided by the revenue court. Judgment debtor No.2 Tilak Raj has failed to prove the surrender of tenancy by plaintiff in his favour. 22. Appellant-society has miserably failed to prove that it was required to be impleaded as party in Civil Suit No.159/1977. It was neither necessary nor proper party. 23. All the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 24. In view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The decree was passed on 23.9.1982 and till date the same has not been executed. Accordingly, the Collector, Una is directed to handover the possession to the decree holder within a period of one month after the receipt of certified copy of this judgment and if necessary by taking assistance of police. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.