S. KHARAK SINGH Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by Kharak Singh, judgment -debtor, against the order of the Subordinate Judge II Class, Hoshiarpur, dated February 23, 1977, whereby his objection petition has been dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that a decree for possession by specific performance regarding the land in dispute on payment of Rs. 300/ - in terms of the agreement between the parties was passed against Kharak Singh by the Subordinate judge 1st Class, Hoshiarpur, on October 31, 1963. As appeal against that judgment and decree was dismissed by the District Judge, Hoshiarpur, on March 12, 1964. The decree holder filed an application for execution of the aforesaid decree. A notice of the application was given to the judgment -debtor who filed objections under section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code inter alia pleading that the decree of the trial Court was not executable, that the application was not within time and that the decree dated June 27, 1973, between the parties operated as res judicata. On the pleadings of the parties the court framed the following issues : -

(3.) THE first question that arises for determination is as to whether the decree of the Court for specific performance is executable. It may be relevant to state again that the Court passed a decree for possession by specific performance in favour of the decree -holder on payment of Rs. 300/ -. it, however, did not fix any time for depositing the amount. The limitation for executing the decree is 12 years. Thus the decree -holder was entitled to deposit the amount within the period of limitation and execute the decree. The learned executing Court after considering the evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the decree -holder had paid Rs. 230/ - to the judgment -debtor (vide receipt Exhibit DHW 1/1) leaving a balance of Rs. 70/ - towards him. He gave time to him to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 70/ - upto March 1, 1977. The said amount, it is admitted before me has been deposited in the executing Court. Therefore, in my view, the decree -holder is entitled to execute the decree. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show to me as to how the decree is not executable. I consequently affirm the finding of the executing Court on issue No. 1.