JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant Civil Revision Petition is directed against the orders recorded by the learned Executing Court on 17.10.2016 in Execution Petition No. 44-10 of 2013, whereby it, in consonance with Ex.PW3/A ordered for issuance of warrants of possession against the Judgement debtors/petitioners herein in respect of properties borne on khasra 696/1 and on khasra No. 708/1, after demolition of the structure raised thereon. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties consensually submit that the judgment and decree which was put to execution before the learned Executing Court acquiring binding conclusive finality. The only submission made before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the judgment debtors/petitioners herein, is anchored upon the factum of the impugned order standing pronounced in the absence of the learned Executing Court prior thereto pronouncing a verdict upon the objections laid before it by the JDs concerned. The absence of any rendition by it, upon the objections preferred before the learned Executing Court by the judgment debtors/petitioners herein, hence stands espoused to vitiate the impugned orders. More so, when the objections impinge upon the executability of the final conclusive decree pronounced in Civil Suit No. 189/1 of 2011/2004. However, the entire strength of the aforesaid contention, gets eroded by Annexure R-1, appended to the reply furnished to the instant petition by the decree holder/respondent herein, wherein, contrarily, a display occurs of the executing Court pronouncing an adjudication upon the objections reared before it by the judgment debtors concerned, objections whereof appertain to the decree put to execution being unexecutable on the ground of amongst the co-judgment debtors, one, namely, Nirmal remaining unsubstituted by her legal heirs also appertain to the factum of, in the absence of Ex.PW3/A, being not ordered to form part and parcel of the decree, thereupon, the decree being rendered unexecutable. Evidently all the aforesaid objections stood adjudicated upon by the learned Executing Court under its orders recorded on 7.10.2016, comprised in Annexure R-1, wherein the latter objection was held to hold no tenacity in the evident face of the JDs concerned being directed to in consonance with Ex.PW3/A, hence handover vacant possession of suit land comprised in khasra Nos. 696/1 and in Khasra No. 708/1. 696/1 and in Khasra No. 708/1. Consequently, the disaffirmative verdict pronounced upon both the aforesaid objections by the learned Executing Court on 7.10.2016, when hence has acquired finality, thereupon, it was wholly unnecessary for the learned Executing Court to subsequent thereto pronounce a fresh verdict thereupon moreso when they hold absolute intra se analogity. Moreover, with finality standing acquired by the decision recorded on 7.10.2016 upon the objections aforesaid by the learned Executing Court, renders worthless any espousal made by the learned counsel for the petitioners/judgment debtors, that the impugned orders passed subsequent thereto by the learned Executing Court, stand ingrained with vitiations, arising from the factum of it omitting to pronounce prior thereto a verdict upon the apposite objections reared by the JDs concerned, objections whereof impinge upon the executability of the decree. In aftermath, the impugned order is maintained and affirmed. 3. Be that as it may, apparently, the JDs concerned, despite being aware of the conclusive binding verdict being pronounced on 7.10.2016 by the learned Executing Court upon the objections reared by them qua the executability of the decree, theirs yet seeking through the instant petition to beget reversal of the impugned verdict recorded subsequent thereto by the learned Executing Court, on the ground of their objections not receiving any adjudication thereon by the learned Executing Court, hence visibly appear to indulge in proactive suggestio falsi and suppressio veri. Moreover, the JDs concerned visibly also by indulging in proactive suggestio falsi and suppressio veri concert to deprive the decree holders of the benefit of a final conclusive binding executable decree besides also by filing the instant petition hence have put the decree holders to unnecessary harassment, in sequel, it is befitting that exemplary costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand) be imposed upon the petitioners herein/JDs concerned. 4. For the foregoing reasons, the instant Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) and the impugned order is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of.