DINESH MEHTA, J. - (1.) By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 25.5.2015 whereby the learned trial court has rejected petitioner's objection dated 02.8.2013.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff decree holder Smt. Kishni Devi had filed the suit under Section 10 of the Specific Performance Relief Act for the purpose of an agreement dated 19.6.1985 which suit came to be decreed by the trial court vide its order dated 29.11.2015.
(3.) Feeling aggrieved against the said judgement and decree the plaintiff filed a civil appeal which came to be allowed by the Additional District Judge, Ratangarh vide its order dated 06.8.2011. It is an undisputed fact that the said judgement has attained finality as the appeal against them has been dismissed by the higher courts. The decree holder thereafter preferred an execution in 2011. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the petitioner-judgement debtor submitted his objection on 02.8.2013 and it was contended that there is no stipulation regarding handing over the possession and as such, the prayer for possession mentioned in execution of decree cannot be allowed. It was also contended that the decree in question was in relation to ?th share of 40 bigha land in Khasra No. 327. It was further contended that while passing the decree the Appellate Court/Executing Court concerned has returned to the effect that ?th part of the 40 bigha land in Khasra No. 327 will be transferred and 15 bigha 12 biswa land in Khasra No. 266 would be transferred to the plaintiff and sale deed would be executed which according to the petitioner was in correct and the decree was required to be modified in as much as final decree the court has passed the decree for execution of sale deed to the extent of 20 bigha 15 biswa. It will not be out of place to reproduce the relevant part of the decree, photo-state copy thereof has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.;