ever refused to accept the service from the Hon’ble Court. It seems that the D.H. by mis-guiding the Hon’ble Court and concealment, got the ex-parte decree against father of the objector, although after 25.9.1989 the objector became the owner in possession of 14.6 marlas of the property. 5. That both in law & equity the property described in the site plan & of which the objector was made owner in possession vide judgment & decree dt. 25.5.1989 is not liable to any execution of any final decree dt. 4.2.98 or any preliminary decree, as the objector was not party in the same and he was neither served nor summoned. The objector as Legal heir of his father Mukand Singh will file appropriate application for setting aside the final decree & pre-decree. 6. That the D.Hs are stopped by their act & conduct & on the principle of acquisance to file execution reg: the property shown in the site plan, 6-SLP(C) 9202-9204 OF 2016as D.Hs have been seen the objector raising the construction, but never