RAJENDRA KUMAR CHACHAN Vs. BANNE SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the revision petition is decided finally at the admission stage, after calling for the record of the execution proceedings.

(2.) THE present revision petition filed under Section 115 CPC is directed against the order dated 24/10/2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Executing Court') in Execution Petition No.112 of 2012, whereby the Executing Court, while dismissing the application of the petitioner -judgment debtor under Section 144 of CPC has permitted the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - decree holders to deposit Rs.9 lacs pursuant to the decree dated 25/8/2010 passed in the Civil Suit No.23/2008, and further directed the petitioner to get his name deleted from the sale deed dated 21/11/2007 and substitute the names of the respondents, and also get the registration done accordingly in the office of Sub Registrar, Jaipur.

(3.) IT is vehemently submitted by the learned senior counsel Mr. S. Kasliwal for the petitioner relying upon the decision of Apex Court in case of State of Kerala vs. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam and Anr., 2001 10 SCC 191, that this Court having allowed the revision petition preferred by the petitioner as per the order dated 21/1/2013, setting aside the order dated 1/3/2011 passed by the Executing Court, the Executing Court was required to dismiss the execution petition of the respondents. According to him, the said order passed by the Executing Court dismissing the objection petition of the petitioner having been set aside by this Court, the necessary implication was that the objections filed by the petitioner against the execution petition had stood allowed and the execution petition deserved to be dismissed. Mr. Kasliwal further submitted that the Executing Court had misinterpreted the order of this Court and had acted beyond its jurisdiction by travelling beyond the decree permitting the respondents to deposit the amount of Rs.9 lacs though the respondents were required to pay to the petitioner the said amount within two months of the decree as per the decree. Drawing the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 14 of the said Act and Order XX Rule 14 of CPC, Mr. Kasliwal submitted that the respondents having not deposited the amount of Rs.9 lacs as per the decree within the time limit prescribed in the decree, the suit itself had stood dismissed, and therefore, the Execution Petition also did not survive. Mr. Kasliwal has relied upon the decisions of Apex Court in case of Harnama Singh (Dead) vs. Harbhajan Singh, 1992 Supp1 SCC 709, in case of Sulleh Singh and Ors. vs. Sohan Lal, 1975 AIR(SC) 1957 and of this Court in case of Shivashankar Dayal vs. Smt. Shanti Devi, 1973 AIR(Raj) 139and of the other High Courts to buttress his submissions.