RAJENDRA KUMAR CHACHAN Vs. BANNE SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-judgment debtor-original defendant no.9 has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this court under section 115 of CPC challenging the order dated 1.3.2011 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Jaipur City Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the "executing court ") in Execution Petition No.44/2010, whereby the executing court has dismissed the objection petition filed by the petitioner under section 47 of CPC.

(2.) THE short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner had purchased the disputed property from the respondent nos.3 to 10, vide the registered sale deed dated 21st November,2007. The respondent nos 1 and 2 -original plaintiffs filed the suit being No.23/2008 (1086/2008) before the trial court claiming their right of pre-emption in the suit property. In the said suit the decree dated 25.8.2010 came to be passed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. The said decree reads as under: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]...

(3.) IT appears that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition challenging the impugned order before this court, however the writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn by the court granting liberty to the petitioner to file revision petition under section 115 of CPC. Accordingly, this revision petition was filed by the petitioner. Pending the revision petition, it appears that the possession of the said property was taken away from the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 26.5.2011 passed by the executing court on the application made by the decree holders. Thereafter, this court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, vide the order dated 2.9.2011 directed to maintain status quo with regard to the property in question, and also directed that the matter be listed for final disposal at the admission stage on the next date of hearing. Since the petitioner was dispossessed from the suit property, he submitted an application under section 144 of CPC in the present revision petition seeking restoration of the possession, however, the said application was not pressed for by the learned Sr. counsel Mr. Kasliwal during the course of hearing of the revision petition.