has been filed against it and as such the said decree appears to have attained finality. The decree holder had filed a petition in Execution Case No. 17 of 2011 for delivery of possession of the decreed property claiming that since the mediation had failed, he had reasons to believe that the judgment debtor would try to resist the delivery of possession. The petitioner filed reply to the said petition of the decree holder claiming inter alia that there was nothing to execute under the decree. It was stated that he had neither put lock nor had any intention to do so in the decreed property. However, the petitioner in paragraph-6 of the said reply stated that he was ready and willing to settle the mutual dispute and differences and it was the decree holder who was adamant and not willing to do so. It thus appears from the said averment that there were some differences between the petitioner and the respondent and as such the probability of resistance to the delivery of possession could not have been ruled out. The decree holder, in his application had prayed for breaking upon the lock, if any, to effect the delivery of possession. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had not put any lock in the decreed property has no relevance in the present case. The only surviving issue is to effect the delivery of possession of the decreed property to the decree holder. Thus, I see no infirmity in the impugned order dated 14.03.2019, whereby the application filed by the decree holder for delivery of possession was allowed. Moreover, it is the petitioner’s own averment that the decree holder is in possession of the decreed property and he is not interfering with his possession. If that is the position, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by the impugned order dated 14.03.2019 allowing the prayer of the decree holder/respondent for the delivery of possession.
