- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 17. 11. 2008 passed by the learned Executing Court while executing the decree for specific performance passed in favour of the decree holder-respondent Ram gopal and rejecting the application filed under Section 47 C. P. C. filed by the petitioner.
(3.) HAVING gone through the impugned order, I am satisfied that the impugned order does not call for any interference. So far as the objections which have been raised could either be raised in the suit or in the appeal which is said to be pending before this court.;