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.