In this civil first execution appeal, appellant challenged the dismissal of his objections to property attachment. The High Court held that since the appellant signed the agreement to sell, the executing court correctly dismissed the objection. The appeal was dismissed.
The civil execution first appeal and pending applications are dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Execution First Appeal No. 2/2010
Badri Lal S/o Balu Jat, R/o Gujarbada Kekri, Tehsil Kekri, District Ajmer.
----Appellant-Objector
Versus
----Respondent-Judgment-Debtor
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.K. Mathur, Sr. Adv. with Mr. R.P. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.V. Nandwana
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order
| Order Reserved on | :: | 18.1.2023 |
|---|---|---|
| Order Pronounced on | :: | 24.1.2023 |
The civil first execution appeal has been filed u/s 96 read with Order 21 Rule 58 (4) and Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC against the order dt. 14.10.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Kekri, District Ajmer in Civil Misc. Objection Case No.50/2009 whereby objections filed by the appellant objector under Order 21 Rule 58 read with Section 151 CPC have been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant-objector submits that respondents No.1 & 2 (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) had filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction against respondent No.3-Balu. The said suit was decreed in favour of plaintiffs and trial court vide its judgment dt. 9.12.2005 held that plaintiffs are entitled to get Rs.2 lacs which were given in advance
(2 of 3)
[EXFA-2/2010]
in lieu of the agreement to sell. Learned counsel for the appellantobjector submits that trial court while dismissing the suit for specific performance regarding registration of the agreement to sell clearly asserted that the said land was the Government land and decree for specific performance of the agreement could not be granted. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that executing court in execution proceedings attached the said land for recovery of the amount. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has constructed a house on disputed land. Balu was not residing with him and he had installed the flour mill in the house and taken electricity connection. So, executing court wrongly dismissed the objection filed by the appellant. So, appeal be allowed and order of the trial court dt. 14.10.2009 be set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant submitted that present appeal is not maintainable. Executing court has decided the execution proceedings and disputed property has been auctioned. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 also submits that signatures of the appellant was on agreement and he was residing with his father Balu. So, executing court rightly dismissed the objection filed by the appellant. So, appeal being devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2.
From the material on record, it is noticed that prior to objection filed by the appellant, sisters of the appellant had also
(3 of 3)
[EXFA-2/2010]
filed the objection regarding execution of the decree but said objection was dismissed by the executing court vide order dt. 25.5.2009. It is also admitted position that Badri had put his signature on the agreement to sell which was executed between Balu and Milap Chand Jain. So, in my considered opinion, executing court rightly dismissed the objection filed by the appellant. So, present appeal being devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
Therefore, the civil execution first appeal stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Brijesh 62.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the execution court rightly dismissed the objection filed by the appellant objector regarding the attachment of attached property.
Whether the first execution appeal filed by the appellant is maintainable.
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Badri Lal
Kamal Kumar
Vimal Kumar
Balu
Narendra Singh Dhaddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
