DINESH MEHTA,J. - (1.) The matter comes upon for consideration of application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution. After hearing at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition itself be decided, for which, other counsels have agreed to and hence the present petition itself is being decided.
(2.) By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners (objectors) have challenged the order dated 09.03.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bali, District Pali (hereinafter to be referred as "Executing Court") whereby, an application filed by them under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been rejected.
(3.) The facts necessary for the decision of the present writ petition are that the plaintiff - Jawanmal had filed two suits, one at Ahmedabad and another at Pali. The suit filed at Pali was in relation to recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/-. During the proceedings of the suit, a compromise was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant and in terms thereof, a compromise decree dated 07.10.2004 came to be passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Pali. According to the decree, an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from 01.01.1989 was required to be paid by the defendant within two years, failing which, his residential house situated at Sumerpur, was ordered to be put to distress.;