JUDGMENT/ORDER Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Petitioner through LRs has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal vide which objections under Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioner were dismissed. 2. Perusal of the record would show that earlier two objections were filed by the petitioner. Both the objections were dismissed by holding that in a suit for redemption of mortgage, the Court is not bound to pass a preliminary decree under Order 34 Rule 7 CPC. Secondly, it was held that no notice is required to be given under Order 21 Rule 22 CPC when the execution petition is filed within two years from the date of last order. 3. Petitioner remained unsuccessful in Civil Revision No.5378 of 2009 when the same was dismissed on 04.04.2018. The said judgment was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well. 4. Now again the petitioner has come up with three objections. It is not in dispute that these objections were available with the petitioner when the earlier two objections were filed but these objections were never raked up. 5. The trial Court has dealt with aforesaid objections by holding that the plea of non-joinder of proper parties is beyond the ambit of Executing Court. Execution of a lawful decree can only be avoided when the same is found to be without jurisdiction, void ab-initio, a nullity or inexecutable by any enactment. 6. No technical objection can defeat the decree passed by the competent Court which has attained finality. Such decree must be honoured in view of Pratibha Singh vs Shanti Devi Prasad, (2003) 2 SCC 330 . The Executing Court is bound by the terms of decree and the Executing Court cannot alter or replace the decree by going beyond the scope of execution. The objection with regard to non-joinder of necessary party is not sustainable at the stage of execution as what can be inherited can be bequeathed also. 7. The Will was executed and mutation was sanctioned. The objection with regard to improvements also remained unsustainable. Only a bald assertion was made that the Court was having no jurisdiction. The plea was against the settled principle of law. 8. A Civil Court has to grant decree of redemption as per ratio of Gurmej Kaur vs Pritam Singh, (1997) 2 RCR(Civil) 100. The objection with regard to improvements also remained unsustainable. Only a bald assertion was made that the Court was having no jurisdiction. The plea was against the settled principle of law. 8. A Civil Court has to grant decree of redemption as per ratio of Gurmej Kaur vs Pritam Singh, (1997) 2 RCR(Civil) 100. There was no stay operating against the execution of decree, therefore, there was no such impediment in the way of the Executing Court to execute the decree. 9. After dismissal of first set of objections in the year 2009, the second set of objections were filed by the judgment debtor/petitioner on 29.05.2018. The objection with regard to death of judgment debtor No.2- Kehar Singh about five years ago was never in issue. In terms of amendment in Order 22 Rule 2 CPC, it is the duty of the legal representatives of the defendant to come on record. On that premise, the fruits arising out of decree cannot be withheld. 10. The present objections were never taken at the time of dismissal of first objections. The impugned order has not been passed solely on the ground that earlier objections were dismissed, so the present objections are unsustainable. The Executing Court has embarked upon the merits of the present objections also. The concept of finality of controversy has to be appreciated in the present context. It was explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs Union of India and others, (2011) 3 RCR(Civil) 779 by interpreting the maxim "interest Republicae ut sit finis litium". 11. The litigation must end after a long hierarchy of remedies at some stage. It would be improper to allow the parties to file application after application in the endless process. The controversy between the parties must come to an end at some stage and the judgment of the higher Court must be permitted to acquire finality. The first objections were dismissed upto the Hon'ble Apex Court. Finality of judgment is absolutely imperative and great sanctity is attached to it. 12. It is an onerous duty of the Court to ensure that undue enrichment is not drawn by the losing party by invoking process of the Court, even after finality of some stage of litigation. The first objections were dismissed upto the Hon'ble Apex Court. Finality of judgment is absolutely imperative and great sanctity is attached to it. 12. It is an onerous duty of the Court to ensure that undue enrichment is not drawn by the losing party by invoking process of the Court, even after finality of some stage of litigation. While curbing the aforesaid tendency, the Court would be fully justified in resorting to punitive action when the legal process is found to have been abused. Doctrine of stare decisis is very valuable principle of precedent which can be departed in ordinary circumstances. 13. In the instant case, two objections were raised by the petitioner in the year 2009. The Executing Court dismissed the aforesaid objections in the year 2009 itself, against which petitioner unsuccessfully contested before this Court in Civil Revision No.5378 of 2009 and ultimately the order passed by the High Court was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 14. Now the judgment debtor/petitioner has filed the present objections after a period of 09 years. 15. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner cannot be permitted to rake up the issue time and again in utter dis-regard to the doctrine of stare decisis. The law laid down in Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. Vs The Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur, (1976) 4 SCC 124 and Green View Tea & Industries vs Collector, Golaghat and another, (2002) 2 RCR(Civil) 362 can be relied in the aforesaid context. 16. The Court should not be hampered by any technical rule and interpretation at the time of applying principle of finality as the same is a fundamental principle which sustains rule of law in ensuring finality in litigation. Principles of resjudicata were enacted on the aforesaid premise and the same have universal application and is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to the litigation and no one should be vexed twice in the litigation on the same cause of action. The Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. 17. The view expressed in Vedic Girls Senior Secondary School vs Rajwanti (SC) 2007(2) was fully in consonance with the earlier view expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab vs Krishan Dayal Sharma, (1990) AIR SC 2177. 18. The Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. 17. The view expressed in Vedic Girls Senior Secondary School vs Rajwanti (SC) 2007(2) was fully in consonance with the earlier view expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab vs Krishan Dayal Sharma, (1990) AIR SC 2177. 18. In view of law laid down in Pratibha Singh's case (supra), no technical objection can defeat the decree which has attained finality after dismissal of first objections upto the Hon'ble Apex Court. 19. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I do not find any merit in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. 20. This revision petition is accordingly, dismissed. CM-4588-CII-2019 21. Since the revision petition has been dismissed, therefore, there is no necessity of passing any order in the present application. 22. Application also stands dismissed.