RAJES KUMAR,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri R.S. Maurya, learned counsel for the 1 petitioners and Sri S.M.Dayal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) WITH the consent of both the parties, the present writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. Suit No. 89 of 1997 has been filed by the respondents at Varanasi which has been subsequently transferred to Ghazipur. The said suit has been decreed on 30.3.2006. In the execution proceedings, the petitioners, who were defendants in the suit filed objections that the Ghazipur Court has no jurisdiction to execute the decree, inasmuch as the property is situated at Varanasi. The said objection has been dismissed by the executing Court vide order dated 26.10.2009 and the revision filed against the said order has also been dismissed by the District Judge, Ghazipur.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the decree can only be executed by the Court where the property situates. Admittedly, the property situates at Varanasi and, therefore, the Court at Varanasi has jurisdiction to execute the decree and not the Court of Ghazipur. In support of the contention he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mohit Bhargava v. Bharat Bhushan Bhargava and others, 2007 (68) ALR 311.;