The litigation was boiled out among the members of the family when Respondent No. 1 instituted suit for separation of his share in the joint property through partition against petitioners, which finally was preliminary 'decreed, consequently local commission was appointed to suggest mode of partition, but his first two reports were discarded and while deciding objections of plainti ff/respondent on third report, vide order dated 24.01.2019, the Court declaring that subject matter was not partitionable ordered for internal auction. The petitioners/ defendants being offended challenged it before learned Revisional Court, who while observing that some other parts of property , which had been independently gifted out to the parties to the lis were also joined by the local commission, as such while allowing the revision petition of the petitioners on 28.05.2019, the third report was annulled as well, however they were directed to handover possession of the gifted property to the respondent/plaintif f, whereas parties to the lis were given choice to purchase the subject matter through internal auction. It admittedly was not challenged, before any higher forum. Pursuant thereto process for its realization started, which was resisted by the petitioners, but objection petition was dismissed vide order dated 21.10.2019 and further maintained by learned lower Revisional Court through impugned order dated 01.02.2020, hence this civil revision.
2. Heard.
3. It is an admitted fact that a consent preliminary decree was awarded with regard to joint property and the learned District Court vide order dated 28.05.2019 directed the learned Civil Court to restore possession of the gifted property to respondent/plaintif f, which was not assailed any further before the higher forum, whereas a time barred application for its review made before the same Court was not only declined rather today the latter's order has also been maintained by this Court, as such order dated 28.05.2019 attained finality in all respect and u/S. 36 of the Code, 1908 the Court is equally competent to enforce any order like a decree, therefore, the objection petition of the petitioners was rightly declined.
4. Raja Tassawar Iqbal Advocate for the petitioners though tried best to his level, but failed to point out any material irregularity or illegality to be committed by the Courts below while passing the impugned orders. Had the order qua restoration of possession with regard to gifted part of property been challenged in time, the position would be otherwise, but having stood final, the Court was bound to realize the same and the petitioners suffered for their own act. This petition being meritless is dismissed in limine .