judgment being passed. The respondents herein have alleged that the warrant of possession is a ‘self prepared 24-SLP(C) 9202-9204 OF 2016document’ and ‘not genuine’ since there was no demarcation of shares. Both these questions are not for this Court to decide. 18. The impugned orders of the High Court dismissing the revision application are to be interfered with, for that instance, the procedure has managed to compromise the substantive right of the objector. The ground taken by the High Court to dismiss the revision application is that the appellant herein misapplied the provisions in filing his objections before the executing court, inasmuch as the objection petition mentioned both Section 47 as also Order XXI Rule 58 and 97 of the CPC. The High Court found that both these sets of provisions could not be applied together given that the method of assailing the orders passed therein are different and cannot co-exist. Whilst looking at it purely from a procedural point of view, this