Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the judgment debtor Raja Ram alias Rajiya being aggrieved by the order dtd.17.8.2005 passed by the learned Executing Court in Civil Misc. Case No. 60/1995 - Achleshwar, decree holder v. Raja Ram, judgment debtor.
(2.) THE present case has long chequered history, but the controversy involved in the present revision petition is very narrow one and this case appears to be glaring example of how a judgment debtor has avoided execution of the decree passed by the Court way back on 22.10.1974 about 35 years back so far though this decree was upheld even upto the High Court with the dismissal of second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. on 11.5.1992 about 16 years backs The only contention raised by Mr. M.C. Bhoot, learned Counsel for the petitioner - judgment debtor Raja Ram is that since the decree dtd.22.10.1974 was passed while deciding 3 proceedings namely, Civil Original Suit No. 216/1971 - Achleshwar v. Raja Ram, Cross civil suit of defendant i.e. Civil Original Suit No. 290/71 - Raja Ram v. Achleshwar and civil misc. application No. 3/1972 filed under Order 39 Rule 2A C.P.C. for alleged violation of temporary injunction order, the decree made in question on 22.10.1974 required amendment because while on 22.10.1974, the learned trial Court while deciding civil misc. application No. 13/1972 also had directed the present petitioner to restore possession of the suit property; a Bara or plot of land in question besides awarding him two months civil imprisonment. The said order was once set aside by remand in civil appeal No. 14/1974 on 18.10.1976 and again the learned trial Court on 20.4.1978 had ordered civil jail of one month to the present petitioner and directed to restore possession against which an appeal was allowed by the learned appellate Court on 27.5.1980. According to learned Counsel, therefore, the directions to restore the possession to the decree holder Achleshwar has also been set aside on 27.5.1980. Therefore, the decree passed on 22.10.1974, directing possession to be handed over to Achleshwar required amendment. The learned Counsel for the petitioner therefore, submitted that the learned Executing Court has erred in rejecting that application filed by the judgment debtor under Section 152 C.P.C. on 17.8.2005 by the impugned order. Hence, this revision petition has been filed.
(3.) ON the side opposite, Dr. R.S. Rajpurohit, learned Counsel appearing for the decree holder Achleshwar represented now through his LRs. Shekhar and ors submitted that this whole exercise of litigation has been undertaken by the present petitioner - the judgment debtor not to permit the decree dtd. 22.10.1974 being executed and despite his earlier revision petition No. 85/1996 Raja Ram v. Shekhar having been dismissed by this Court on 5.11.2003, the present revision petition is almost action replay of the same revision, which was dismissed on 5.11.2003 and therefore, the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs and the decree should be allowed to be executed and the possession of the land in question should be handed over to the decree holder who has now waited for almost 35 years.;