ASHOK Vs. GYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission.

(2.) The case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that he had filed a suit for specific performance of contract in respect of an agreement executed between the parties in the year 1997, wherein the decree was passed on 29.09.2000 and it was ordered that the plaintiff shall tender the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,65,000/- to the defendant and in case of refusal by the defendant, the amount shall be deposited in the Court with 12% interest on the remaining amount and after this condition being complied with, the defendant shall execute the sale deed of House No.148 of Jaora Compound in favour of the plaintiff/decree holder and also participate in the registration process before the Sub-Registrar Property Assurance Office. The aforesaid decree was assailed by the judgment debtor in First Appeal No.855 of 2000 before this Court, which came to be dismissed on 20.09.2018 and an S.L.P. No.23686 of 2019 preferred against the aforesaid judgment in the first appeal has also met with the same fate on 27.09.2019..

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that in the meantime, i.e. on 09.07.2019, an execution proceeding bearing No. EXA/82/2019 was also initiated by the petitioner/decree holder and on 04.10.2019, the Counsel for the respondent/judgment debtor appeared before the Executing court and also obtained the copy of the execution application and the next date was fixed on 06.11.2019 but after 04.10.2019, the Counsel for the judgment debtor stopped appearing in the Executing Court where a draft sale deed was also filed by the decree holder as provided under Order 21 Rule 34 of C.P.C. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Judge of the Executing Court, instead of proceeding further with the execution of the sale deed has issued notice to the respondent/judgment debtor as to why the sale deed of the suit property should not be executed by the Court in favour of the decree holder in terms of sub-rule (2) of Order 21 Rule 34 of C.P.C.