ORDER : By way of instant petition, petitioner has assailed order dated 07.01.2020 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Una, District Una, H.P. in Execution Petition No. 11/2014 whereby the objections raised by petitioner to the executability of the execution petition have been dismissed. 2. Briefly, the facts are that on 18.06.1990 a decree for possession of immoveable property was passed in favour of the respondents and against Har Niranjan Kaur, who was predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. After passing of decree, Har Niranjan Kaur died. Appeal against decree dated 18.06.1990 was filed by her son Gurkirat Singh, which was dismissed. Gurkirat Singh further filed RSA No. 131 of 1997 which was also dismissed on 23.04.1997. Thus, the decree dated 18.06.1990 attained finality. 3. The above noticed decree was put to execution and the petitioner was impleaded as judgment debtor as even his father Gurkirat Singh had died. 4. Petitioner preferred reply to the execution petition and also termed it as objections under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The first objection raised by petitioner was that Har Niranjan Kaur was survived by other legal heirs in addition to Gurkirat Singh and in their absence the execution petition could not proceed. Another objection was raised that the property with respect to which decree under execution was passed, was not in possession of the petitioner and was with the adjoining land holders, as such, the decree could not be executed for want of identification. 5. Both the objections raised by petitioner are clearly without merit. Petitioner cannot espouse the cause of others, who had never chosen to assail the decree dated 18.6.1990 passed against Har Niranjan Kaur. Similarly, the objection that the property which was subject matter of the decree was in possession of third party cannot be allowed to be raised by the petitioner for the same reason that he cannot espouse the cause of others. The persons referred to by the petitioner to be necessary parties in execution, may have their own cause of action, if any. 6. It is not the case of petitioner that after passing of decree dated 18.6.1990 and after the death of Har Niranjan Kaur, anyone of the alleged legal heirs of Har Niranjan Kaur had come forward to assail the decree or to stake their independent claim on the suit property. 6. It is not the case of petitioner that after passing of decree dated 18.6.1990 and after the death of Har Niranjan Kaur, anyone of the alleged legal heirs of Har Niranjan Kaur had come forward to assail the decree or to stake their independent claim on the suit property. That being so, all legal heirs of Har Niranjan Kaur are bound by the decree passed against her. As noticed above, in case they have any individual grievance, they have every right to approach the Court in accordance with law. 7. In light of above discussion, no fault can be found in the impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.