AMAR NATH SHARMA Vs. BANKEY BIHARI JI MAHARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.03.2014 whereby his objection in the execution petition has been rejected. The decree which forms the basis of the execution petition has already been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(2.) MR . Pattjoshi, learned senior counsel submits that there is a doubt about the identity of the property, hence the objections before the Execution Court. He says that the translated copy of the Sale Deed which formed an integral part of the suit, shows that the suit property is different from what was set up in the suit which has been decreed. He states that the Sale Deed which forms the basis of recording of the transfer of title was in Urdu and that the translated copy of the same was not available to the Trial Court for appreciating the true identity of the property from which the petitioners are sought to be dispossessed. He submits that the property in the possession of the petitioners is not the same as described in the site plan. He further submits that a suit has been filed in this regard i.e. to ascertain the exact identity of the property in occupation of the petitioner vis -a -vis the decreed property, and till the determination of this factual position the impugned order ought not to be given effect to. He seeks protection of Order 21 Rule 29 CPC.

(3.) QUITE clearly the petitioner had himself identified the property which was the subject matter of the suit as averred by him and it was so recorded in the aforesaid RSA. Therefore insofar as the suit property has been identified by him in the RSA, it is that very property which will be the subject matter of the execution petition. Mr. Jos Chiramel, counsel for the respondent submits that the suit property was identified in the site plan filed alongwith the plaint. The Executing Court would proceed in evicting the petitioner from the suit premises as identified and decreed.