RAJU Vs. LALITPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein he has prayed for setting aside the order dated 15.3.2004 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar and also the order dated 16.10.2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Hisar.

(2.) AS is apparent from the petition and the impugned orders, respondent No. 1 had filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 8.5.1990. This suit was decreed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar on 22.3.1997. The said judgment and decree was upheld in appeal. The decree-holder then filed an application in the Court of first instance praying therein that the judgment-debtors had not obeyed the decree and they be directed to perform their part by executing the sale-deed in his favour and deliver the possession of the suit land. The said execution application was opposed by the present petitioner by filing his objections on 10.3.2003, but the same were rejected, being not sustainable, by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar on 15.3.2004. This order was challenged in appeal by the petitioner. Along with the appeal, an application was also filed for condonation of delay of 119 days in its filing learned Additional District Judge, Hisar vide order 16.10.2006 dismissed the application for condonation of delay in the filing of the appeal and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed. Hence, the present revision.

(3.) ON the other hand, it was argued by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that the order passed by the executing Court was apparently one passed under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, and therefore, the same could be challenged only by filing an appeal as provided under Order XXI Rule 103 C.P.C. instead of filing a revision petition.