AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has laid
challenge to the order dated 12.05.2017, whereby the Executing
Court (Senior Civil Judge, Mandal, District Bhilwara) has issued a
direction to execute the sale-deed, pursuant to the Agreement
dated 23.09.2002 in terms of the judgment and decree dated
11.12.2015 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions
Judge No.2, Bhilwara in Civil Appeal No. 22/2011.
It is an admitted case of the petitioner that in furtherance of
the said order dated 12.05.2017, a registered Sale-Deed has been
executed on 19.06.2017.
Ms. Kausar Parveen, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the respondent may be restrained from
taking possession of the contentious property from the petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show,
as to how, the order impugned 12.05.2017 is illegal and contrary
to the facts and law involved in the present case. The entire line
of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
petitioner has not been given sufficient opportunity to obstruct the
execution proceeding, which argument, in the considered view of
this Court, is not sustainable on the facts of the present case.
This Court does not find any infirmity in the order dated
12.05.2017 passed by the learned Executing Court, which is
required to execute a decree passed by the Competent Court.
As a matter of fact, the present writ petition has been
rendered infructuous, as the Sale-Deed, pursuant to the direction
of the Executing Court in terms of the Judgment and Decree dated
11.12.2015, has already been executed and registered on
19.06.2017. As such, the petitioner''s request, that he may not be
dispossessed, cannot be entertained and accepted.
As a result of the discussion aforesaid, the present writ
petition is dismissed.