MOHD AHMAD Vs. AHMAD HASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is being filed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Muzaffarnagar, dated 14.10.2009, passed in Revision No. 39 of 2008 against the order of the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Muzaffarnagar, dated 8.2.2008 in Suit No. 18 of 2007 (Mohammad Hameed & another v. Ahmad Hasan).

(2.) It appears that in respect of plot No. 1010M area 10.7.0 Bigha, i.e. 2.072 hectare, situate in village Kamhedda, respondent No. 2 executed an agreement to sale in favour of respondent No. 1 in respect of his 1/6th share in the property on 19.7.1991. It appears that respondent No. 2 has executed a sale deed of his 1/6th share in the same property in favour of the petitioner on 31.7.1992. Respondent No. 1 filed Suit No. 625 of 1992 for specific performance. The said suit was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar, vide order dated 7.4.2003 and respondent No. 2 was directed to execute the sale deed within two months on payment of Rs. 4,000/- and in case if respondent No. 2 fails to execute the sale deed, plaintiff-respondent No. 1 would be entitled to get it executed through the Court. It appears that in the suit the petitioner has been impleaded as defendant No. 2. It also appears that in the additional written statement it has been stated that the petitioner has executed a sale deed of the portion of the land in favour of one Mahipal on 21.12.1998. The trial Court, having regard to this fact, has categorically observed that sale deed dated 21.12.1998, executed by the petitioner- defendant No. 2, stand nullified. It appears that in pursuance of the aforesaid decree dated 7.4.2003 the sale deed dated 2.8.2007 has been executed in favour of respondent No. 1 in respect of the property in dispute. On the execution of the sale deed, for possession, respondent No. 1 has filed a execution proceeding, which is registered as Execution case No. 13 of 2003. In the said proceeding the petitioner has filed objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Court No. 1, Muzaffarnagar, vide order dated 8.2.2008, has rejected the objection and has further directed to issue Parwana in accordance to the decree and the Amin was directed to provide possession to respondent No. 1 in accordance to the decree.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed Revision No. 39 of 2008, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.