Abhinava Upadhya, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of the executing court dated 6.5.2013 by which executing court has directed for forceful recovery of possession over the property in question with the help of the Police. It is submitted that a suit for specific performance was filed by the respondents being Suit No. 212 of 1995. In the said suit the petitioner was one of the defendant and the said suit came to be decided on 16.5.2001 and a decree dated 29.5.2001 was passed directing for execution of sale deed through the court.
(2.) PURSUANT to the aforesaid order, sale deed was executed on 1.4.2004 through the court. It is submitted that the aforesaid sale deed was executed in Execution Case No. 33 of 2002. It is also submitted that on 6.5.2013 the executing court further directed to take forceful possession of the property in question with the police help from the defendants, who claim to be in possession of the property. This order dated 6.5.2013 came to be challenged by filing revision being Civil Revision No. 39 of 2013 on which date has been fixed as 25.5.2013.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisional court without considering the law on the issue has directed for forceful possession and the same order is in the teeth of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Adco Electronic Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Daulat and another, : (2001) 7 SCC 698 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the provisions of Specific Relief Act, especially Section 22 of the Act, has held that no relief for specific performance can be granted unless specifically claimed.;