BELA M.TRIVEDI, J. - (1.) WITH the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the revision petition is decided finally at the admission stage, after calling for the record of the execution proceedings.
(2.) THE present revision petition filed under Section 115 CPC is directed against the order dated 24/10/2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Executing Court') in Execution Petition No.112 of 2012, whereby the Executing Court, while dismissing the application of the petitioner -judgment debtor under Section 144 of CPC has permitted the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - decree holders to deposit Rs.9 lacs pursuant to the decree dated 25/8/2010 passed in the Civil Suit No.23/2008, and further directed the petitioner to get his name deleted from the sale deed dated 21/11/2007 and substitute the names of the respondents, and also get the registration done accordingly in the office of Sub Registrar, Jaipur. The factual matrix of the case is as under: - 3(i). The present petitioner had purchased the disputed property from the respondent Nos.3 to 10 (original defendant Nos.1 to 8) vide the registered sale deed dated 21/11/2007. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 (the plaintiffs), therefore, filed the suit ascertaining their right of preemption in respect of the suit property, which was contested by the petitioner by filing the written -statement. However, subsequently the petitioner, who was the defendant No.9 in the suit, submitted an application on 9/7/2010 requesting the Court to decree the suit, if the respondent Nos.1 and 2 -plaintiffs paid Rs.9 lacs to him towards the sale consideration within one week. Pursuant to the said application, the Court on 25th August, 2010 passed a detailed order and decreed the suit as under : - '' XXX XXX XXX.' 3(ii). It further appears that though the condition incorporated in the said decree with the consent of the parties was not complied with by both the parties, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 -plaintiffs -decree holders filed the execution petition being No.44 of of 2010 on 28/10/2010 before the Executing Court. The present petitioner -defendant No.9 -judgment debtor resisted the said execution petition by filing the objection petition under Section 47 of CPC on 16/11/2010 alleging inter -alia that the respondents -decree holders having not complied with the condition of the decree by not depositing the amount of Rs. 9 lacs within two months as directed, the suit had stood dismissed under Section 14 of the Rajasthan Preemption Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), and therefore, the execution petition deserved to be dismissed. 3(iii). The Executing Court vide the order dated 1/3/2011 dismissed the said objection petition of the petitioner, against which the petitioner had preferred the revision petition being No.50 of 2011 before this Court. Pending the said revision petition, it appears that the Executing Court issued the possession warrant against the petitioner on 9/5/2011, posting the matter on 30/05/2011. However, on 26/5/2011, the Executing Court took up the matter on Board without informing the counsel for the petitioner and at the instance of the counsel for the respondents -decree holders, and permitted the respondents to take the possession by breaking open the lock of the suit premises. Accordingly the possession of the suit premises was taken over by the respondents -decree holders on 14/7/2011. The said revision petition came to be allowed by this Court vide the order dated 21/1/2013 setting aside the order dated 1/3/2011 passed by the Executing Court. While allowing the said revision petition, this Court had observed, as under : - "9.According to Mr.Mishra, the said respondent nos.1 and 2 had to seek permission of the court for depositing the said amount and therefore the said amount was not deposited, however subsequently separate application was made by them for depositing the said amount. The court does not find any substance in the said submission of Mr. Mishra, inasmuch as the concerned respondents -plaintiffs did not have to seek permission nor make separate application for depositing the said money, and in any case, the said application was filed by them on 22.8.2011 i.e almost one year after the decree was passed. That apart, the said application is still pending before the executing court and the amount of Rs.9 lacs has also not been deposited by the respondent nos. 1 and 2. As such, when the direction contained in the decree was to pay Rs.9 lacs to the petitioner, there was no need for the respondents no. 1 and 2 to make application before the executing court seeking permission to deposit the said amount in the court, and that too after about one year of the decree......... 10.As transpiring from the decree in question, directions were to the effect that the plaintiffs shall pay the amount of Rs.9 lacs to the defendant no.9 within two months, and defendant no.9 shall hand over the possession if any of the suit premises within the said period. In the opinion of this court, both the directions had to be complied with during period of two months. The decree nowhere stated that the plaintiffs shall pay Rs. 9 lacs to the defendant -9 only if the defendant no.9 handed over the possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs, nor it was stated that the plaintiffs shall first pay Rs.9 lacs to the defendant no.9, and then only the defendant no.9 shall hand over the possession to the plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, the trial court has committed an error in misinterpreting the decree in question and by holding that since the possession was not handed over to the plaintiffs by the objector -defendant no.9, his objection application was required to be rejected. The order under challenge being illegal and perverse, the same deserves to be set aside, and the executing court is required to be directed to decide the execution application pending before it in accordance with law." 3(iv). It is pertinent to note that pending the said revision petition, an application was filed by the petitioner under Section 144 of CPC for restoring the possession of the suit premises, however, the said application was subsequently withdrawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner with a view to file such application before the Executing Court. The petitioner thereafter filed the application seeking restoration of possession under Section 144 of CPC before the Executing Court. 3(v). After the order dated 21/1/2013 passed by this Court in revision petition No.50 of 2011, the Executing Court allowed the execution petition of the respondents -decree holders, and dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 144 of CPC vide the impugned order dated 24/10/2013, as stated hereinabove. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner judgment debtor has preferred the present revision petition.
(3.) IT is vehemently submitted by the learned senior counsel Mr. S. Kasliwal for the petitioner relying upon the decision of Apex Court in case of State of Kerala vs. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam and Anr., 2001 10 SCC 191, that this Court having allowed the revision petition preferred by the petitioner as per the order dated 21/1/2013, setting aside the order dated 1/3/2011 passed by the Executing Court, the Executing Court was required to dismiss the execution petition of the respondents. According to him, the said order passed by the Executing Court dismissing the objection petition of the petitioner having been set aside by this Court, the necessary implication was that the objections filed by the petitioner against the execution petition had stood allowed and the execution petition deserved to be dismissed. Mr. Kasliwal further submitted that the Executing Court had misinterpreted the order of this Court and had acted beyond its jurisdiction by travelling beyond the decree permitting the respondents to deposit the amount of Rs.9 lacs though the respondents were required to pay to the petitioner the said amount within two months of the decree as per the decree. Drawing the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 14 of the said Act and Order XX Rule 14 of CPC, Mr. Kasliwal submitted that the respondents having not deposited the amount of Rs.9 lacs as per the decree within the time limit prescribed in the decree, the suit itself had stood dismissed, and therefore, the Execution Petition also did not survive. Mr. Kasliwal has relied upon the decisions of Apex Court in case of Harnama Singh (Dead) vs. Harbhajan Singh, 1992 Supp1 SCC 709, in case of Sulleh Singh and Ors. vs. Sohan Lal, 1975 AIR(SC) 1957 and of this Court in case of Shivashankar Dayal vs. Smt. Shanti Devi, 1973 AIR(Raj) 139and of the other High Courts to buttress his submissions.;