JUDGMENT : Anoop Chitkara, J. Challenging the order dated 21.12.2019, passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Shimla, in CMP No.1865/2019 and CMP No.1778/2019 in Execution Petition No.16-S/10 of 2014/2011 titled as Ajit Lajwanti Gujral Trust & another vs. Hardip Kaur Gandhi (Annexure P-9), the Judgment Debtors have come up before this Court, seeking quashing of the same. 2. I have heard Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, learned Senior Advocate for the Judgment Debtors/ petitioners and Mr. Bhupinder Gupta & Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned Senior Advocates, for the Decree Holders/respondents. I have also perused the record of Civil Revision No.160/2017, titled as Hardeep Kaur Gandhi and Others vs. Ajit Lajwanti Gujral Trust and others, after requisitioning the same from the Registry. 3. The facts apposite to adjudicate the present matter are as follows:- (a) The property, which is the subject matter of adjudication, is known as Rockdene Estate. One Sardar Ajit Singh originally owned the said property. During his lifetime, he executed a Will bequeathing the entire Estate in favour of his wife Smt. Lajwanti, who after his death inherited the same. Smt. Lajwanti was issue less and continued to possess the property till her last breath. In the Will executed by Sardar Ajit Singh, he had desired that the property be used only for religious purposes. Continuing the same expression, Smt. Lajwanti also executed a Will in her lifetime in favour of one Sh. Rajinder Singh Gujral, whereby she also expressed her desire to use the property for charitable public use. (b) After the demise of Smt. Lajwanti, Shree Gurudwara Singh Sabha, which is the second respondent herein, converted a portion of the building and its open passage by establishing a Gurudwara over the land in question. (c) After that, a dispute arose between Nanak Singh Gandhi and his brother Praveen Singh Gandhi with Shree Gurudwara Singh Sabha because these two persons had allegedly unauthorizedly tress-passed in the portion of the Kothi and had allegedly started claiming the same to be their. (d) The second respondent tried to stop the alleged encroachers which led to filing of a suit by Nanak Singh Gandhi, claiming the right over the property. Shri Nanak Singh Gandhi filed his Suit, seeking a declaratory decree over the suit land by way of adverse possession and also sought injunction against the second respondent i.e. Shree Gurudwara Singh Sabha. (d) The second respondent tried to stop the alleged encroachers which led to filing of a suit by Nanak Singh Gandhi, claiming the right over the property. Shri Nanak Singh Gandhi filed his Suit, seeking a declaratory decree over the suit land by way of adverse possession and also sought injunction against the second respondent i.e. Shree Gurudwara Singh Sabha. (e) It is pertinent to mention here that after the death of Smt. Lajwanti, Shri Rajinder Singh Gujral, created a Trust in the name of “Ajit Lajwanti Gujral Trust” vide Trust Deed dated 4.7.1982, which is the 1st respondent herein. It is further revealed that the said land comprised in Khasra Nos.660 to 669, 666, 667, 674/1 and 703/1, measuring 2 Bighas and 17 Bishwas. Shri Nanak Singh Gandhi further claimed that during the lifetime of Smt. Lajwanti, he had served her and as a return she had agreed to handover the possession of the entire property to him for cultivation. He further claimed that he had raised an Orchard over the same. It is further revealed that the said suit later on was withdrawn on 10.3.1981. After that Shri Nanak Singh filed another suit in the capacity of President of Gurudwara Laj Ajit Memorial Sabha. The said suit was registered as Civil Suit No.38-S/1 of 1995/1981. In the said suit, the plaintiff claimed decree for possession of the property known as Rockdene Estate. The plaintiffs made the present respondents as the defendants therein. The plaintiffs claimed in the suit that Shri Nanak Singh was appointed as a caretaker of the property, while Shri Naveen Singh was appointed as a sewadar. (f) Another suit was filed by the 1st respondent herein i.e. Ajit Lajwanti Gujral Trust, claiming the possession, injunction and damages. The said suit was registered as Civil Suit No.6-S/1 of 1996/1983. (g) The Court decreed the civil suit filed by Ajit Lajwanti Gujral Trust, by granting decree for possession of suit property, the portion of Kothi shown in red ink in the plan attached with the plaint. Further, decree of permanent prohibitory injunction was also passed in respect of suit land described as under :- (i) 8 plots of land measuring 6 Bighas 2 Bishwas comprised in Khasra Nos.659, 665, 670, 671, 673, 678, 679/1; and 680 entered at Khewat No.47 Khatauni No.50 (SAKNAE). Further, decree of permanent prohibitory injunction was also passed in respect of suit land described as under :- (i) 8 plots of land measuring 6 Bighas 2 Bishwas comprised in Khasra Nos.659, 665, 670, 671, 673, 678, 679/1; and 680 entered at Khewat No.47 Khatauni No.50 (SAKNAE). (ii) Land 2 plots measuring 4 Bighas 8 Bishwas comprised in Khasra Nos.668 and 675 entered in Khewat No.90 Khatauni No.131. (iii) Land 3 plots measuring 1 Bigha 3 Bishwas comprised in Khasra Nos.670/1, 672 and 674. (iv) Land 9 plots measuring 2 Bighas 17 Bishwas comprised in Khasra Nos.660, 661, 662, 663, 664, 665, 667, 674/1 and 703/1 entered in Khewat No.67-min Khatauni No.83 in accordance with Jamabandi for the year 1979-80 situated at Mauja Badai, Tehsil and District Shimla alongwith all buildings, constructions, etc. standing thereon i.e. the entire property mentioned in para 1 of the plaint except for property comprised in and standing upon land comprised in Khasra No.677 and western part of Khasra No.679 total measuring 1 Bigha 3 Bishwas. (h) The suit filed by Gurudwara Lal Ajit Memorial Trust through Shri Nanak Singh was dismissed. (i) Both the parties brought the matter before this Court, which was registered as RFA No.28 of 1998 and RFA No.29 of 1998 and the same were decided by a common judgment dated 24.2.2009. a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court upheld the judgments of the trial Courts and thereafter the said judgments were sought to be reviewed by filing Civil Review Nos.71 and 72 of 2009. The same have been dismissed on 24.12.2009. The matter was further agitated in the Apex Court, but Special Leave Petitions were also dismissed. After the decree was affirmed up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Decree Holders took out execution proceedings to recover possession of the portion of Kothi as per the map attached with the plaint of Civil Suit No.6-S/1 of 96/83 in which objections were filed. They came to be adjudicated by the executing Court and were held to be untenable. The executing Court dismissed the objections on 3.1.2015, against which Civil Revision No.7 of 2015 was filed in this Court. Vide judgment dated 7.9.2016, a Coordinate Bench of this Court directed the executing Court to frame issues and dispose of the execution petition within three months. The executing Court dismissed the objections on 3.1.2015, against which Civil Revision No.7 of 2015 was filed in this Court. Vide judgment dated 7.9.2016, a Coordinate Bench of this Court directed the executing Court to frame issues and dispose of the execution petition within three months. Objections were again dismissed by the executing Court on 28.6.2017, against which Judgment Debtors filed Civil Revision No.160 of 2017. The said petition was also dismissed on 25.7.2019 and now again when the executing Court proceeded to execute the decree granted in favour of Decree Holders, the present petition has been filed in which same and similar objections, as were raised and agitated by the Judgment Debtors in Civil Revision No.160 of 2017, are being agitated. 4. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, learned Senior Advocate contends that the property cannot be identified and, as such, the decree is un-enforceable. To the contrary, Mr. Bhupinder Gupta and Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned Senior Advocates, contended that the Judgment Debtors did not dispute the identify of the portion of the Kothi, which is the subject matter of the suit. Further contention is that the matter regarding identification of the property stands finally decided against the Judgment Debtors and cannot be re-agitated being barred by the principle of resjudicata. They further contend that the executing Court had framed a specific issue and finally rejected the contention of the Judgment Debtors. They drew the attention of this Court to the findings in Civil Revision No.161 of 2017, vide which the matter has attained finality. 5. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance upon the decision of Orissa High Court in Rama Subudhi and others vs. Bhagirathi and others, AIR 1982 Orissa 86. He placed reliance upon Paragraph-8 of the judgment, which reads as under :- “In our opinion, it is clear from the above decision that if the decree-holder is satisfied with the alleged delivery of possession, whether physical or symbolical, he cannot on a subsequent date ask for actual possession by filing a second execution petition. A prayer for fresh delivery of possession can be entertained only in cases where there was no legal, complete and effective delivery of possession on the earlier occasion. Similar view has been taken in AIR 1966 SC 470 (M. V. S. Manikayala Rao v. M. Narasimhaswami) AIR 1964 Mad. A prayer for fresh delivery of possession can be entertained only in cases where there was no legal, complete and effective delivery of possession on the earlier occasion. Similar view has been taken in AIR 1966 SC 470 (M. V. S. Manikayala Rao v. M. Narasimhaswami) AIR 1964 Mad. 53 (FB) (Ramaganessan Pillai v. Rajah Ayyar) AIR 1955 Nag 79 (Radhalal v. Chabilchand) and AIR 1957 Punj 17 (Jaimal Singh Dasaundha Singh v. Rakha Singh). In the case of Ghanashyam Das Mour Agarwalla v. Fatik Chandra Das; AIR 1957 Assam 123 it has been held that if the fact was that actual delivery of possession was not obtained by the decree-holder in the previous execution case there was no justification for holding that the decree-holder be deprived of his right to come before the executing Court and pray for a fresh delivery of possession when there was no other bar to his right for executing the decree. In view of the principles laid down in the aforesaid cases, we agree with the learned single Judge that since there was no legal, complete or effective delivery of possession on the earlier occasion it is competent for the decree holder to apply again for physical delivery of possession. We hold that the first point urged on behalf of the appellants-judgment-debtors is devoid of any force.” 6. Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, states that this judicial precedent is clearly distinguishable and not applicable in the present case. He stated that the said judgment was passed entirely on different facts and cannot be referred as the precedent in law. I agree with the contention of Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Senior Advocate as this judgment is clearly distinguishable. 7. After this, Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, learned Senior Advocate placed reliance upon the decision of Privy Council in Bhan Kumar Chand and another vs. Mohan Lal and others, AIR (35) 1948 Privy Council 180, but this decision is not at all applicable to the present case. 8. It is undisputed that the Civil Suit No.6-S/1/1996/1983, which led to filing of present execution, has attained finality being up-held by all the Courts, including Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India. 9. When the Decree Holders sought execution of the judgment, then the Judgment Debtors, the petitioners herein started delaying the execution on one pretext or the other. 8. It is undisputed that the Civil Suit No.6-S/1/1996/1983, which led to filing of present execution, has attained finality being up-held by all the Courts, including Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India. 9. When the Decree Holders sought execution of the judgment, then the Judgment Debtors, the petitioners herein started delaying the execution on one pretext or the other. Initially, they filed objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The executing Court dismissed the said objections and then they approached this Court, by way of Civil Revision No.7/2015, which was disposed of on 7.9.2016 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 10. This Court returned the petition to the executing Court to frame issues and it also permitted the parties to lead evidence. 11. When the executing Court adjudicated the objections, then the Judgment Debtors, petitioners herein again approached this Court, assailing the dismissal of such objections by filing Civil Revision No.160 of 2017. Vide judgment dated 25.7.2019, the said objections were dismissed. The same has attained finality because it was never taken to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, learned Senior Counsel, for the petitioners states that they have filed a review petition against this judgment and the said review is lying under objection. Be that as it may, Civil Revision No.160/2017, as on date, has attained finality. 13. Before the executing Court, the Decree Holders prayed for a order for possession by breaking open the locks with Police assistance through the Bailiff of the Court. Vide impugned order dated 21.12.2019 (Annexure P-9), the executing Court allowed the said application. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, learned Senior Counsel, contends that the revenue agency could not execute the warrant of possession for want of identification of the property in the absence of Khasra numbers or details of the property in the warrants. 14. Learned Senior Counsel, further contends that the action of Decree Holders making prayer for getting the warrant of possession executed through the Bailiff of the Court is not in consonance with law. Because when the revenue agency has already reported that the property is unidentifiable, as such, the Bailiff of this Court, under the garb of impugned order, was trying to dispossess the Judgment Debtors from such portion of the property which may not be the subject matter of the decree because of lack of identification. 15. Because when the revenue agency has already reported that the property is unidentifiable, as such, the Bailiff of this Court, under the garb of impugned order, was trying to dispossess the Judgment Debtors from such portion of the property which may not be the subject matter of the decree because of lack of identification. 15. After perusing the aforesaid record of Civil Revision, this Court finds that the arguments raised by Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, learned Senior Advocate, are untenable and contrary to the facts. The most important point is that this matter stands finally adjudicated by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No.160 of 2017, which as on date, has attained finality. 16. Further more, the lis between the parties commenced in the year 1993 and the issue of identification of property was never raised by the Judgment Debtors. On the face of it, it is a plea to delay the execution of the decree. It is strange that the decree could not be enforced because of the tactics adopted by the Judgment Debtors. On the face of it, it is an abuse of process of law. 17. A perusal of the execution petition reveals that Decree Holders-respondents have sought execution of the decree for possession, of a portion of Kothi i.e. in respect of the structure raised over the land in question, is clearly identified in the plan annexed with the plaint, in terms of the decree granted by the trial Court having been affirmed upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. How, the decree in such a situation is to be put for execution. Decree for possession of a structure is to be executed in terms of the provisions of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Reference is made to Order 21 Rule 35(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure which lays down that where possession of any building or enclosure is to be delivered and the person in possession, being bound by the decree does not afford free access, the Court, through its officers, may after giving reasonable warning and facilities to any women not appearing in public according to the custom of the country to withdraw, remove or unlock or bolt or break open any door or do any act in this regard for putting the Decree Holder in possession. 18. 18. Since the decree sought to be executed by Decree Holders-respondents is in respect of the structure identified in the plan i.e. in respect of the portion of Kothi, thus the decree is to be executed by the Court through its officers, which has granted it. The record reveals that when warrant of possession after disposal of Civil Revision No.160 of 2017 was issued, how and under what circumstances warrant of possession had been sent to the District Collector, who in turn had further directed the Tehsildar to execute the same on the spot. Noticeably, when warrant of possession had come back un-executed, with a report by the Field Kanungo that the property cannot be identified for want of Khasra numbers in the warrant of possession, the Decree Holders had rightly made an application (Annexure-P8) for the issuance of a fresh warrant of possession through the Bailiff. The same is in accordance with the aforesaid provisions of law. Also, since the Judgment Debtors had locked the structure by denying the access and obstructed the delivery of possession, thus the prayer made by the Decree Holders for executing the warrant by breaking open of locks was also within the provisions of law. The warrant of possession for a decree for possession of a portion of Kothi can only be executed through Bailiff of the Court and not through the Revenue Agency. The application so made (Annexure P-8) was thus in accordance with the provisions of Order 21 Rule 35(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure and no fault can be found with the action of Decree Holders in making such application. Since in the present case, decree for possession of land was never sought for or granted, thus the same had wrongly been sent to the Revenue Agency for execution as the requirement of Order 21 Rule 35(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure is execution through the Officer of the Court and the “Bailiff” is an officer of the Court and not the Tehsildar, Field Kanungo or any other revenue official. They are the officials of State (Revenue Agency). Reference can also be made in this regard to Chapter 12-G of Volume I of the Punjab High Court Rules and Orders, as applicable to the Subordinate Courts of Himachal Pradesh which are in consonance with the aforesaid provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. 19. Mr. They are the officials of State (Revenue Agency). Reference can also be made in this regard to Chapter 12-G of Volume I of the Punjab High Court Rules and Orders, as applicable to the Subordinate Courts of Himachal Pradesh which are in consonance with the aforesaid provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. 19. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondents contends that since the decree was being wrongly sent to the Revenue Agency for execution, thus reliance placed upon by the Judgment Debtors upon report of Field Kanungo is immaterial and of no consequence rather is misplaced. Since the possession of portion of Kothi had to be delivered, the same was clearly identifiable by a plan showing the portion within red and no Khasra numbers were required to be given. The Bailiff shall be executing the decree in accordance with the provisions of law. Further, since there is no perversity, illegality or irregularity committed by the executing Court directing the decree for possession of structure to be executed by the Bailiff, hence there is no merit in the petition. The learned Senior Counsel further contends that the impugned order deserves to be upheld by dismissing the petition. 20. I have given a considerable thought to the entire lis and it appears that the process assailing the impugned order is to further prolong the proceedings. In view of this, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. The Court Master to return back the record of Civil Revision No.160/2017 to the Registry.