Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - (1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be accepted, and order under challenge dated 27.08.2016 (Annexure-06) passed by the learned Executing Court (Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) No. 2, Jodhpur Metro) in civil execution No. 23/2014 Vijay Prakash v. Secretary, Management Committee, Lachoo College may kindly be quashed and set aside and application (Annexure - 04) filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed."
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the order passed by the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Tribunal, Jaipur on 05.10.2017 has been confirmed but for determination of the amount, the execution proceedings ought to be elaborate and detailed so that the determination of the amount consequential to the judgment is made out.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported in 2014 (1) Civil Court Cases 108 (Rajasthan); Nagar Palika Nadbai v. Shri Brij Lal and Ors. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: "12. A bare glance at the above provision demonstrates that an attachment order under this provision is made to ensure that the judgment debtor obeys the decree and upon his failure to obey and the attachment order remaining in force for six months, such attached property may be sold and out of the proceeds, the court may award to the decree holder such compensation as it thinks fit. In the instant case, the respondents had prayed for multiple reliefs in their execution petition. They prayed that position which existed before 25/02/2002 be restored and shop, kotha, chabutra etc. be constructed at the cost of the judgment debtor; that the responsible persons be sent to civil jail, that the property attached be sold and they be compensated to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The executing court vide its order dt.13/05/2005 only passed an order of attachment of the property worth Rs. 50,000/- and the order is silent with respect to the other reliefs as claimed in the execution petition. 13. Besides, from a bare perusal of the order it is revealed that the executing court in view of the factual controversy involved in the petition, deemed it appropriate to allow both the parties to lead oral as well as documentary evidence to substantiate their respective claim akin to a suit. This procedure adopted by the executing court cannot be faulted with but to resolve the factual controversy on better footing, it would have been appropriate for the trial court to frame specific points with regard to the controversy involved and then pass an order distinctively on each such point of controversy leaving nothing to realm of ambiguity. Framing of issues is not mandatory in deciding an execution petition but where complete factual controversies are involved, it is always appropriate in the fitness of things to frame all points of controversy and pass an order distinctively on each such point framed. Adopting such a procedure confirms with the principles of natural justice and fair play, besides putting the rival parties to notice as to what case they have to meet, it further prevents surprise and attention of stand at the final stage. This Court is convinced that the instant matter involved complex factual controversies which need to be resolved by framing distinct point of controversy. Whether the demolition was carried out by the District Administration (PWD) or at the behest of Nagar Palika; whether the property effected by the decree dt.10/08/1977 was the same upon which the demolitions were done; whether the applicants were entitled to whole relief as claimed are the main controversies which emanates from the execution petition and the reply thereto. This Court is of the opinion that passing of an order in a wholesome manner without proper framing of the points of controversy by the executing court was not appropriate and the same cannot be sustained. 14. Hence, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the executing court for fresh decision after framing specific and distinct points of controversy as indicated herein before and then pass a detailed order distinctively on each point. It is further directed that after framing of such points, the rival parties shall fully be entitled to lead evidence in support of their respective claims and the executing court will pass an order after appreciation of such evidence in accordance with law. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion as to the conclusions drawn by the executing court in its order dt. 13/05/2005. The trial court is free to decide the matter in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made herein above. Since the matter pertains to the year 2005, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the executing court to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law in the manner indicated herein above, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.";