A.N. Varma, J, - (1.) THROUGH the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 2.1.2007 (Annexure No. 8) passed by opposite party No. 1, whereby the objection preferred under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure in execution proceedings have been rejected. It has further been prayed that a writ in the nature of prohibition be issued to the opposite party No. 1, whereby it may be refrained from proceeding with the Execution Case No. 5/95 as well as confirming the auction sale held on 8.8.2005. One Dev Kali, who was Bhumidhar of certain piece of land entered into an agreement for sale with opposite party No. 2 on 24.11.1984. Rupees 20,000/ - was also paid by opposite party No. 2 towards advance. The sale, however, could not be materialized, as such opposite party No. 2 instituted a suit for recovery of the advance amount. The said suit was decreed on 5.9.1992. It appears that opposite party No. 2 could not get amount and on 15.11.1994, said Dev Kali executed a sale deed in respect of property in question in favour of the petitioner Society. It appears that in an auction proceedings conducted on 8.8.2005, the same property was sold out to someone else. Since the opposite party No. 2 could not reap the fruits of the decree in his favour, therefore, he initiated the proceedings for execution, to which objections under section 47 of the Code of Civil procedure were preferred by the petitioner.
(2.) THE Trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 2.1.2007 rejected the objections on two counts. Firstly, that the said objections were barred by limitation and secondly on merits. Against the said judgment and order the petitioner filed a revision (Revision No. 13 of 2007) before this Court which is pending adjudication and 2.2.2007 is the date fixed in which the petitioner himself is said to have preferred an application for withdrawal. The impugned order has been assailed primarily on three grounds. Firstly, that the entire proceedings conducted by the executing Court are nothing else but an abuse of process of law inasmuch as the Suit itself was hit by section 157A of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, as the vendor had no salable right and the property had vested in the State free from all encumbrances. Secondly, the question of limitation has wrongly been decided by the executing Court and thirdly the petitioner being bona fide purchaser for value the property in question could not be sold out in auction proceedings.
(3.) IN so far as, the pendency of revision before this Court is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that since the same is not maintainable, therefore, he has already made an application for withdrawal of the said revision.;