MADAN, J. - (1.) IN this revision petition, the petitioner (judgment debtor) has challenged the order dated 18. 4. 2000 of the Civil Judge (JD) Ajmer (West) in execution Case No. 12/95 whereby application of the plaintiff (decree holder) moved under Section 152 CPC was allowed.
(2.) THE suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court on 30. 9. 82, against which the first and second appeals preferred by the defendant (petitioner) were dismissed. S. B. Civil Second Appeal No. 227/96 was dismissed by this Court on 27. 3. 97. THE first as well as second appellate courts after taking into consideration oral and documentary evidence of the parties, had arrived at the conclusion that the defendant was since his licensee, the plaintiff is entitled to the vacant possession of the suit property and thereby plaintiff's suit was held to be rightly decreed by the trial Court. This Court in aforesaid second appeal held that since both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact, no question of law muchless substantial one was involved. However, this Court directed that in case the defendant furnishes an undertaking before the trial court to the effect that he would hand over peaceful vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within six months, execution of the decree should remain stayed for aforesaid six months. THEreafter instead of handing over the peaceful vacant possession of the suit property to the decree holder, the judgment debtor filed objections to the execution of the decree before the executing court by raising objections inter alia that the decree was not executable because portion sought to be vacated in defying the decree was different than what was actually required to be vacated. His case is that the premises sought to be vacated was on the ground floor instead of first floor as mentioned in the warrant of possession issued by the executing court and the bailiff had expressed his inability to execute the decree. Notwithstanding the plaintiff decree holder moved to the court on 22. 2. 99 to direct the bailiff to get delivery of the possession of the suit premises the process was desisted by the judgment debtor with a view to frustrate execution of the decree. THEreupon the executing court appointed a Commissioner who submitted his report alongwith site plan. It is only thereafter that the executing court by its impugned order has allowed decree holder's application by directing the bailiff to deliver possession of the suit premises in compliance of the decree. Shri R. K. Agrawal learned counsel for the judgment debtor has contended that the decree was passed in respect of the first floor as to the Godown while the Executing Court under the guise of its interpretation could not substitute it by different premises and that too in respect of two rooms which was not part of the decree nor was it a case of the plaintiff in his application so also of the execution, which was not contemplated in the decree. I have heard the learned counsel for the judgment debtor and considered his contentions with reference to the conclusions drawn by the Executing Court in the impugned order. The finding recorded by the lower court is that possession of the suit property is admittedly with the judgment debtor, to which he has also made categorical admission in his statement before the trial Court on 6. 9. 82 during cross examination by exhibiting a site plan Ex. A. 4 inasmuch as he has not disputed rather admittedly by categorically deposing that suit godown was in two parts as described in site plan Ex. A. 4 describing it A,b,c & D. The lower court held that with a view to frustrate and protract the execution of the decree despite having furnished as undertaking before the High Court in aforesaid second appeal as to the delivery of vacant possession with six months, the judgment debtor has raised a new construction of a wall in the suit premises consisting of two parts of the godown, which has obviously been done with a view to obstruct free ingress and outgress of the occupants to their disadvantage under the garb of this newly constructed wall, so also to frustrate the execution of the decree, as is rightly pointed out by reports of the Nazir and the local commissioner, on the basis of which reports, the Executing Court recording finding that the suit property described in the warrant of possession is neither different nor varied from that has been stated in the decree. Hence the Executing Court found no substance in the objections raised by the judgment debtor and consequently under the impugned decree directed the bailiff to ensure compliance and execution of the decree and submit his compliance report on 20. 5. 2000. I have examined ratio of decisions in AIR 1956 Punj & Har. 336 (1) and AIR 1977 SC 410 (2), which have been relied upon by Shri Agrawal. The ratio of decisions in aforesaid cases (supra) is not attracted to the present case. I do not find any force in the contentions advanced by Shri Agrawal and also do not find any error of jurisdiction or material irregularity in the impugned order. As a result of the above discussion this civil revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed in limine. Accordingly interim stay order dated 8. 5. 2000 stands vacated. The learned trial Court is directed to issue fresh warrant in compliance of its order dated 18. 4. 2000 in Chandra Prakash vs. Balkishan, (1) for fresh date in accordance with law. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for immediate compliance. . ;