Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties on application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed and the delay is condoned.
(2.) WITH the consent of the rival parties, matter is heard finally on merits. The petitioner, judgment -debtor, has preferred this revision petition under Sec. 115 CPC against the impugned order dt. 27.11.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Bikaner (the learned Executing Court), whereby the objections submitted on behalf of the petitioner, judgment -debtor, under Sec. 28 of Specific Relief Act read with Order 21 Rule 32 CPC were rejected by the learned Executing Court. The respondent, decree -holder, and other co -plaintiff, Dhanraj, has jointly laid the petition for executing a decree for specific performance of contract against the petitioner, judgment -debtor, but in the instant revision petition, the petitioner has impleaded one of the plaintiff, Chhaganlal, as party -respondent and the other co -plaintiff, Dhanraj, has not been impleaded as party -respondent. Thus, this revision petition suffers from the vice of non -joinder of necessary parties.
(3.) EVEN otherwise on examining the impugned order on merits, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order because the learned Executing Court has considered the objections in the light of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act and so also while examining the provisions contained in Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. In my considered opinion, the learned Executing Court has not committed any jurisdictional error while passing the impugned order and the said order has also not occasioned failure justice. There is nothing on record to show that the learned Executing Court while passing the impugned order exercised the jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity warranting interference by this Court. The net result of the above discussion is that there is no force in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.;