JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. A conclusively recorded binding final decree of partition pronounced with respect to suit khasra numbers stood put to execution before the learned Executing Court. However, during the pendency of the execution petition, the JDs instituted objections before the learned executing Court, objections whereof, with respect to the executability of the decree, focused upon an order pronounced by the Consolidation Officer, exercising powers under Section 56 of the Consolidation Act, whereby the Revenue Officers concerned were directed to correct the Karukans of one of the suit numbers borne on Khasra No. 1042. Furthermore, the objections projected by the JDs before the learned executing court, reflect that possession besides ownership of some portions of suit khasra number borne in Khasra No. 1042, being held by the State of Himachal Pradesh. Moreover, an objection was also ventilated with respect to the demarcation of suit Khasra Numbers being conducted on 21.01.2011, in sequel, whereto a report of the demarcating officer concerned emanated, with reflections therein of two marlas of a suit khasra number being in possession of one Labu Ram and one Marla of suit land being in possession of the PWD, whereas the remaining part of the suit land being in possession of JDIII, given the latters’ house existing thereon, existence whereon of his house being since the times of his ancestors. All the objections were considered by the learned Executing Court. Under a pronouncement recorded upon the aforesaid objections by the learned Executing Court, it dismissed all the aforesaid objections. Thereafter, the JDs instituted a civil revision petition before this Court. This Court in its pronouncement made on 31st July, 2012 dismissed Civil Revision petition No. 35/2012, as stood preferred before this Court against the orders recorded by the learned Executing Court on 12.3.2012, whereby the aforesaid objections filed before it, by the JDs, stood hence dismissed. Consequently, the conclusive binding decree of final partition, held its sway, whereupon the learned Executing Court stood enjoined to put it to efficacious execution, by its pronouncing an order upon the Revenue Officers, for the latter putting all the contestants into possession of those suit Khasra numbers, as stood respectively allotted to them under a binding final decree of partition. The learned Executing Court pronounced the impugned order on 1.12.2015 whereby the revenue officers stood directed to enforce/implement the conclusive final decree of partition. The learned Executing Court pronounced the impugned order on 1.12.2015 whereby the revenue officers stood directed to enforce/implement the conclusive final decree of partition. Though, with this Court dismissing Revision petition No. 35 of 2012, as stood preferred before this Court whereby the JDs, had assailed the order recorded by the executing Court on 12.3.2012 whereby all the aforesaid objections stood dismissed by it, whereupon the learned Executing Court cannot be faulted in its enforcing the conclusive final decree of partition pronounced with respect to suit Khasra Numbers besides thereupon the JDs concerned stand estopped to re-agitate all objections which stood earlier rejected by the learned Executing Court especially when a revision petition which arose therefrom before this Court, stood also dismissed. Nonetheless, the petitioners herein concert to contend, that the rigor of the principle of finality attracted vis-à-vis the order recorded by the learned Executing Court on 12.3.2012, standing eroded by subsequent thereto, the field revenue officers concerned making a report before the learned Executing Court with portrayals therein, reflective of their incapacity to implement the final decree of partition pronounced with respect to suit khasra numbers. Also thereupon the learned counsel for the petitioner herein contends, that with the aforesaid material not finding existence at the time contemporaneous to theirs rearing objections before the learned Executing Court rather theirs spurring subsequent thereto, thereupon theirs being disabled at the stage of theirs initially instituting objections to the execution petition to in consonance therewith project objections, disabilities whereof hence not attracting vis-à-vis the reports of field revenue officers, the rigour of the mandate of the provisions held in Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. However, the aforesaid contention, cannot come to be accepted, as portrayals, if any, existing in the reports of the Field Revenue Officers concerned, reflective of their inability to execute the conclusive final decree of partition rather in their entirety impinge upon the fact of subsequent to the rendition of a final decree of partition, a correction in the karukans occurring in the year 2002, factum whereof is already ventilated in the earlier preferred apposite objectionss, objections whereof already stand condusively dismissed, whereupon hence the petitioners are estopped from re-agitating them. Even if some corrections in the karukans appertain to the suit khasra numbers also if they have come into being subsequent to rendition of a final decree of partition, pronounced with respect to suit khasra numbers the Revenue Officers yet are expected to mete deference thereto, by tallying the scales of karukans borne prior hereto in the relevant records in respect of suit khasra numbers, with their subsequently corrected/modified scales/karukans borne in the extant records. The relevant collation was enjoined to be made by the revenue officers concerned. However, their failure to make the relevant collations, cannot give a good ground for theirs being precluded to implement the concurrently recorded final decree of partition. Conspicuously, also when the factum aforesaid holds similarity vis-à-vis the objections in respect thereof previously preferred by the JDs, objections whereof stood dismissed both by the learned Executing Court besides by this Court, thereupon any subsequent objections holding similarity with the earlier therewith objections, cannot be sustained by this Court, significantly when it would result in the reopening of conclusive verdicts recorded in respect thereof by this Court. The impugned order hence is amenable for its being sustained. The instant Revision petition is dismissed. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Executing Court on 24th August, 2017. The Revenue Officer concerned shall report to the Executing Court, the fact of possession, if any, of khasra numbers being held, not, by any of the contesting parties rather being held by persons/entites/department who are/were not parties to the lis.