[2025:RJ-JP:50695] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16556/2025 1. Smt. Kantibai W/o Late Jamnalal, R/o Mangrol, Tehsil Mangrol, District Baran, Raj. 2. Lalit S/o Late Jamnalal, R/o Mangrol, Tehsil Mangrol, District Baran, Raj. 3. Vinod S/o Late Jamnalal, R/o Mangrol, Tehsil Mangrol, District Baran, Raj. 4. Rakesh S/o Late Jamnalal, R/o Mangrol, Tehsil Mangrol, District Baran, Raj. 5. Smt. Rekha D/o Late Jamnalal, W/o Jitendra Kumar, R/o Mangrol, Tehsil Mangrol, District Baran, Raj. ----Petitioners/Objectors/ Defendant Versus 1. Raghunandan S/o Jamnalal, R/o Ward No. 10, Mangrol, District Baran. ----Respondent/Decree Holder/Plaintiff 2. Municipal Board, Mangrol, Through Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Mangrol, District Baran, Rajasthan ----Respondent/Judgment Debtor/Defendant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal with Ms. Dipti Jindal For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 16/12/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 01.08.2025, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mangrol, District Baran, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners was rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, vide judgment and decree dated 10.10.1995, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Baran, passed a decree against the ancestors of petitioner namely Jamnalal S/o Moochand as well as defendant No.1—the Municipality, Mangrol. By the said decree, defendant [2025:RJ-JP:50695] (2 of 3) [CW-16556/2025] No.1–Municipality, Mangrol was directed to execute the requisite sale deed and other documents in favour of the plaintiff, namely Jamnalal S/o Dhanna Lal. It was further directed that defendant No.1–Municipality, Mangrol shall evict defendant No.2-Jamnalal S/o Moochand and hand over possession of the suit property to the plaintiff, Jamnalal S/o Dhanna Lal. 3. The petitioners preferred an appeal before this Court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 18.04.2024. Thus, the decree has attained finality. 4. During the execution proceedings, the petitioners were not impleaded as parties, and only the Municipality was impleaded. The petitioners filed an application under Section 47 of the CPC contending that, since eviction was to be carried out against them, they ought to have been heard. They also raised various objections, which were essentially in the nature of challenging the decree. 5. The learned Executing Court rejected the said application vide order dated 01.08.2025. 6. Hence, the present civil writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, without impleading the petitioners as parties, the Executing Court could not have directed defendant No.1–Municipality to evict them, and therefore, they were required to be heard. He accordingly prayed that the impugned order dated 01.08.2025 be quashed and set aside. 8. Heard. Considered the material available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:50695] (3 of 3) [CW-16556/2025] 9. This Court finds that the decree passed against the petitioners has already attained finality, whereby eviction of the petitioners from the property in dispute has been ordered. The decree specifically directs defendant No.1–Municipality to evict defendant No.2 (the present petitioner). Therefore, at the stage of execution, the petitioners were not necessary parties. 10. Further, the objections raised by the petitioners in their application were, in substance, challenging the decree itself. It is a settled principle of law that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and cannot entertain objections challenging the correctness or validity of the decree, particularly when the decree has already been affirmed by the appellate court. 11. This Court further finds that the application was filed only with the intention to delay the execution proceedings, seeking impleadment and permission to lead evidence at the stage of execution. 12. This Court finds no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 13. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed. 14. All pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (BIPIN GUPTA),J Sudha/21