P.K. Lohra, J. - (1.) By the instant petition under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, petitioners are seeking review of order dated 13th of August, 2018, rejecting S.B. Civil Revision No.11/2016 filed by them. In the revision petition petitioners challenged order dated 15th of December, 2015, passed by Sr. Civil Judge, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand whereby Court rejected their applications in Execution Case No.07/13 under Section 3 read with Article 136 of the Limitation Act, under Order 21 Rule 22 & 23(2) read with Section 151 CPC and under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 141 CPC, while simultaneously allowing the application dated 23rd of May, 2015 of the respondent decree-holders. According of respondent-decree holder's application also facilitated issuance of warrant against petitioner judgment-debtors under Order 21 Rule 30, Order 21 Rule 35 & Order 21 Rule 32 CPC.
(2.) For reviewing the order dated 13th of August, 2018 of the Court petitioners have buttressed undermentioned grounds: - Original valuation of the suit being only Rs.5000/-, as the disputed shop was mortgaged for loan for this amount only, the sale value of the shop mentioned in the compromise agreement was Rs.2,50,000/-, was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court. - Decree passed by trial Court recognized and gave effect to the agreement whereby right, title and interest of a party in the suit became extinct and stood created in favour of another as such the decree was compulsorily registerable but not having been registered remained unenforceable. - Execution petition itself had been filed beyond the period of limitation was not executable. - As the decree holder defendant No.3 did not take any step and remained sleeping and allowed to elapse the limitation of twelve years prescribed under Section 18 read with Article 136 of the Limitation Act, he alone was to be blamed. - Issue of redemption of mortgage, the subject matter of the original suit, remained unattended by the trial Court and execution Court. - Condition regarding default in payment of mesne profit @Rs.50,000/- was imposed but from which date the amount became due or payable was required to be decided by the execution court only after evidence of both the parties.
(3.) Learned counsel in support of his submissions referred to followings decisions: - Bhavan Vaja & Ors. Vs. Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Mansang & Ors, 1972 AIR(SC) 1371 - Kiran Singh & Ors. Vs. Chaman Paswan and Ors, 1954 AIR(SC) 340 - Gurnam Singh (D) thr. L.Rs. & Ors. Vs. Gurbachan Kaur (D) by L.Rs, 2017 AIR(SC) 2419 - Tarsem Singh Vs. Sukhminder Singh, 1998 AIR(SC) 1400 - Henry Earnest Meaney & Anr. Vs. Mr. E.C. Eyre Walker,1947 AIR(All) 332 - Tarun Bhargava Vs. State of Haryana & Anr, 2003 AIR(P &H) 98.;