- (1.) Since all the aforesaid three writ petitions arise out of one and the same impugned order, therefore, arguments have been heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) Challenge in these writ petitions is to the order dated 26.11.2008, whereby the Additional District Judge No.1, Ajmer dismissed the application filed by the appellants-petitioners under Order 26 Rule 9 readwith Section 107 and 151 CPC.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the property described in the suit as also in the decree does not correspond to property for which execution has been filed. The boundaries of both the properties are distinct. Hence, with a view to ascertain the actual property about which the decree of eviction has been passed by the trial court, it has become necessary to appoint a commissioner, who may prepare the report after making a local investigation of the property on site. The executing court sans assigning any cogent reason arbitrarily dismissed the objections raised by the petitioner on an application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC.;