- (1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-objector-judgment debtor challenging the order dated 6.2.14 in the Execution Proceeding No. 4/12 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the executing court') whereby the executing court has allowed the application of the respondent-judgment creditor for issuance of possession warrant and permitted him to execute such warrant with the help of police.
(2.) It appears that the respondent had filed the suit against the petitioner-defendant seeking possession of the disputed area of plot No. 130. The said suit was dismissed on 23.8.97 by the trial court against which the Regular First Appeal being No. 276/97 was preferred by the respondent before the High Court. The High Court passed the judgment and decree dated 26.7.05 on the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. The relevant part of the decree reads as under :- "While passing a decree in favour of the appellant for the possession of the plot No. 130, it is hereby ordered that in case the respondents submit the undertaking by 15.09.2005 to willingly handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the area 38'.6"/38'.3"x20' out of the plot No. 130 and remove the constructions which exists on the said area on or before 31.12.2005, the decree in this suit for possession of the plot No. 130 would be limited to the area 38'.6"/38'.3"x20' only. However, in case the respondents fail to submit the said undertaking by 15.09.2005 to handover the said area of 38'.6"/38'.3"x20' of plot no. 130 on or before 31.12.2005 to the decree-holder appellant, the decree-holder appellant would be entitled to the possession of entire area of plot No. 130. Measuring 48'.6"/48'3"x20' along with mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month from the date of filing of the suit."
(3.) It appears that though the petitioner-judgment-debtor had submitted the undertaking by 15.09.2005, he did not handover the possession of the disputed area of the plot No. 130 on or before 31.12.05 and, therefore, the respondent-judgment creditor filed the execution proceedings before the executing court. In the said proceedings, the petitioner had filed the objection under Section 47 read with Section 151 of CPC, however the executing court passed the impugned order directing the issuance of possession warrant against the petitioner as stated hereinabove.;