- (1.) THE petitioner/judgment-debtor has laid this revision petition under Section 115 CPC against the impugned order dated 18th of November, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Deedwana (learned Executing Court), whereby the learned Executing Court while rejecting the objections of the petitioner/judgment- debtor has ordered demolition of construction raised by the judgment-debtor on land in question.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Executing Court, vide its order dated 8th January, 2010, has made it clear that that before considering the objection of the petitioner, it is necessary and desirable that the factum of raising of construction be ascertained by permitting both the parties namely decree- holder and judgment-debtor to adduce their respective evidence on the issue. Pursuant thereof, the respective parties have tendered their evidence for substantiating their claims. After conclusion of the evidence, the learned Executing Court while rejecting the objection of the petitioner has not thrashed out the evidence in proper perspective and from the order impugned, it is clear that there is no meaningful consideration of the evidence tendered by the rival parties in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited my attention toward Order 21 Rule 32 CPC, wherein certain guidelines are provided for execution of decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction. According to Mr. Purohit, sub-rule (1) of Rule 32 of Order 21 CPC has not been adhered to by the learned Executing Court. Mr. Purohit has also submitted that the learned Executing Court cannot travel beyond the terms of the decree and the decree has to be executed in the same terms as decided by the Court in the verdict. According to Mr. Purohit, this aspect of the matter has not been examined by the learned Executing Court while passing the impugned order. Per contra, Mr. Sukhwal submits that the prayer was very much made by him in the plaint for seeking mandatory injunction against the petitioner/judgment- debtor and after dismissal of the suit, he preferred an appeal and the appellate court has granted him indulgence by way of decreeing his suit. With this submission, Mr. Sukhwal submits that the learned Executing Court has exercised its discretion properly in ordering demolition of the construction already raised. Mr. Sukhwal further submits that the alleged construction was not carried out by the petitioner/judgment-debtor after seeking permission from the concerned local authority. Mr. Sukhwal has also contended that the scope of interference by the revisional court is very much limited and the powers conferred on the revisional court are not akin to that of appellate Court. With these submissions, Mr. Sukhwal submits that no interference with the impugned order is warranted.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.;