Mahesh Bhagwati, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is to the order dated 28th April, 2011 rendered by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Alwar, whereby the review application filed by the Petitioner objector under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected and the order dated 25.11.2010, whereby the objection petition filed by the objector under Order 21 Rule 35 read with Section 97 of Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed.
(2.) AT the very outset it is pertinent to record that the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of cases has consistently held that the High Court should exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution only in the event when the impugned orders are found to be perverse, contrary to material and they result in manifesting injustice. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that these powers should not be usually exercised to interfere with the pure findings of fact of the courts below. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is noticed that the objector and the judgment debtor are the real brothers. Albeit the electricity connection is said to be in the joint name of objector and the judgment debtor, but merely electricity connection in the joint name will not prove the fact that the property in dispute has not been partitioned. Conversely, the Agreement executed in between the judgment debtor and the decree holder, clearly suggests that at the time of entering into the agreement, the judgment debtor stated himself to be the owner of separate portion, having right to mortgage the same. He annexed the map of his portion along -with the Agreement and was found to have sold the said portion to decree holder. On the basis of the said Agreement, the learned trial court passed the decree in favor of the decree holder and against the judgment debtor, which was affirmed by the appellate court. It is further noticed that in pursuance of the aforesaid decree, the learned trial court has got the registry done of the disputed property in favor of the decree holder and the order with regard to taking possession has been issued. The objector is found to have filed the objection petition with a view to unsettle the settled things. The learned trial court is found to have rightly dismissed his objection petition as well review application. There is a concurrent finding of fact and in view thereof, this Court does not feel inclined to interfere with the said finding. The impugned orders rendered by the court below are found to be just and proper and suffer from no infirmity. These orders are neither found to be perverse nor contrary to the material on record, hence the writ petition filed by the Petitioner deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.
(3.) FOR the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merits stands dismissed in limine.;