Kashmir Singh vs Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Another

A.S. Garg, J.—There has been a decree for recovery of Rs.2,60,000/- against the petitioner. The agricultural land of the petitioner measuring 14-1/2 Acres (116 Kanals) was attached. The petitioner filed an objection petition that only small portion of the land if sold could satisfy the decreed amount and, therefore, the whole of the land was not required to be auctioned. The objection petition was dismissed by the learned executing Court.

As a consequence therefore, the petitioner came up in revision to reiterate his objections. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Judgment Debtor, who has sufficient means to pay the decretal amount is not paying the money of his own. He owns 116 Kanals of land as mentioned above and he never voluntarily sold any portion of the land himself to satisfy the decree and instead he has been putting obstructions for one reason or the other towards the execution and satisfaction of the same. According to him, the learned trial Court and the learned lower appellate Court had already granted a sufficient relief to the petitioner that they asked him only to pay the money instead of asking him to execute the sale deed in pursuance to an agreement of sale by way of specific performance. In the given situation, one cannot conceive of an idea that the executing Court is bifurcating any portion of the land and putting the same to auction to satisfy the decree. Nobody is likely to purchase this small piece of land which may not be useful to the purchaser. So there is no alternative with the executing Court but to execute the decree in the manner it is being proceeded with. There appears to be no error of fact or law committed by the learned executing Court. The revision having no merit, is dismissed.