- (1.) Decree dated 16.11.2010 for recovery of Rs.1,89,723/- alongwith interest, is under execution but the judgment-debtor is delaying and dilating satisfaction of the decree on one score or the other. Merely by stating in the objection petition that the attachment has not been effected as per law, in itself, is not enough. No revenue documents have been filed with the objection petition to sustain and support the claim of the judgmentdebtor.
(2.) Plea of the judgment-debtor further that there are other co-owners also and he has only some share in the land, which is joint with other co-owners, also is not sustainable because no documentary evidence supportive of the claim of the judgment-debtor has been produced by him.
(3.) Plea of the petitioner/judgment-debtor that satisfaction of the decree can be made even by selling small part of the land and there is thus, no need to sell the entire property under attachment, again is an argument made in the air. No revenue document has been placed on the file to show as to how much is the quantum of ownership of the judgment-debtor in the attached land and how much money it will fetch in the auction sale. It is also noteworthy that the judgment-debtor has also not bothered to place any valuation report from any revenue official regarding value of the land of his share and sale of how much land out of the land under attachment, would be sufficient to satisfy the decree under execution.;