ORDER : 1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. Perused the impugned order dated 15.2.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge No.4, Ajmer dismissing the petitioner’s objection to the execution of the decree dated 29.3.1986 whereby the Court of Munshif (East), Ajmer directed the eviction of the tenant-Hansraj and which decree has attained finality. 2. The petitioner objector-Vanraj is the son of one Madan Singh. It is on record that earlier objection to the execution of the judgment and decree dated 29.3.1986 was filed under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC by the applicant-Vanraj along with his brothers, all sons of Madan Singh on 2.2.1987. Those objections were dismissed by the executing court on 8.12.1987. No proceedings were taken against the dismissal and the order dated 8.12.1987 attained the finality. 3. Thereafter, the execution proceedings of the decree dated 29.3.1986 moving at a snail’s pace and reflective of the delays which are endemic, on the decree holders application the executing court on 10.2.2016 issued direction to execute the decree dated 29.3.1986 by removing any person from the premises concerned there under and causing hindrance or refusing to vacate the property. The applicant-Vanraj this time in individual capacity, filed objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC on 14.10.2016 seeking to agitate his right to the “suit property”, in which execution to the decree dated 29.3.1986 was underway, as a son/successor of Madan Singh in whose favour appeal No.82/1992 arising from a suit for partition before the Additional District Judge No.1, Ajmer had been purportedly allowed allegedly holding that he was entitled to 1/7th share of the suit property belonging to the erstwhile owner Harlal—his father. 4. But be as it may, the executing court while dismissing the objections dated 14.10.2016 has noted that in fact the late Madan Singh the applicant’s Vanraj’s father through whom he sought to set up his objections in the context of the judgment in civil misc. appeal no.82/1992 by the Additional District Judge, No.1 Ajmer, second time over to the execution of decree dated 29.3.1986 had executed a registered sale deed in favour of Smt.Draupadi Devi on 30.4.1969 pursuant whereto as the owner of the property, she had come into possession and then let it out to one Hansraj brother of Madan Singh. appeal no.82/1992 by the Additional District Judge, No.1 Ajmer, second time over to the execution of decree dated 29.3.1986 had executed a registered sale deed in favour of Smt.Draupadi Devi on 30.4.1969 pursuant whereto as the owner of the property, she had come into possession and then let it out to one Hansraj brother of Madan Singh. Hansraj having defaulted in payment of rent, an eviction suit was filed by Draupadi Devi (since deceased and represented now by Shakuntla) against him in which the decree of eviction was passed on 29.3.1986. The execution Court’s order was affirmed in Civil Misc. Appeal on 15.02.2018. 5. Heard. 6. I am of the considered view that the earlier application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC at the instance of Vanraj along with his brothers having been admittedly dismissed by the executing court on 8.12.1987, and the dismissal having attained finality, the subsequent application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC was not maintainable as the applicant Vanraj was even in the subsequent application for all practical purposes agitating the same title/right/ownership of the tenanted property—though fraudulently in the facts recorded above as his father Madan Singh had sold the suit property by registered sale deed on 30.04.1969 to Smt. Draupadi Devi, the predecessor in interest of the decree holder Shakuntla. Aside of the lack of merits of the petition, it being one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India it is liable to be dismissed for reasons of the petitioner not approaching this Court with clean hands as evident from his failure to disclose the factum of dismissal of his application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC filed along with his brothers the Executing Court on 8.12.1987. 7. There is thus no legally plausible ground to impugn the order dated 15.02.2018 passed in Civil Misc. Appeal affirming the Execution Court’s order dated 29.11.2016 whereby the petitioner-objector’s application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC was dismissed.