execution was carried out and exparte orders were passed in the execution petition in R.E.P. No.56 of 2016. The orders made in C.M.A.No.23 of 2014, dated 30.11.2016 and the orders made in Execution petition were the subject matter of three revisions before this Court in C.R.P. No.404 of 2017 and C.R.P. (PD).Nos.2124 & 2126 of 2019. All the three revisions were disposed of by this Court by a common order dated 29.08.2019. By the said orders, while dismissing the revision in C.R.P. No.404 of 2017 which was filed against the order in C.M.A. No.23 of 2014, this Court allowed the C.R.P.(PD) Nos.2124 & 2126 of 2019. While doing so, this Court directed the Trial Court to dispose of the suit within a specific time frame. There was also a direction to the respondent in C.R.P.(PD)Nos.2124 & 2126 of 2019 to reimburse the expenses incurred by the petitioner towards the execution of sale deed. Neither the amount was fixed nor any time was fixed for such reimbursement. However, after about 570 days, the respondents filed a memo before the trial Court seeking the exact amount that was spent by the petitioner for execution of the sale deed. The petitioner would have done well to have given the details of the amount that was spent by him for execution of the sale deed. Instead of doing that, the learned counsel for the petitioner/ respondents before the Trial Court filed the four page objection claiming that this Court has fixed a time limit for reimbursement in the Order, dated 29.08.2019 made in C.R.P.(PD) Nos.2124, 2126 of 2019.
