Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Tarun Gupta, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Neelam Singh, Adv. Mr. Sameer Singh, Adv. Mr. Sandiv Kalia, Adv. Mr. V. Gopal Achary, Adv. Mr. Nand Ram, Adv. Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

• The case involves the execution of a decree for specific performance of sale of property, with a focus on compliance with procedural requirements under Order XXI Rule 34 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

• The decree mandated that the remaining sale consideration be deposited within a specified period, and the sale deed was to be executed only after proper adherence to this procedure (!) (!) .

• The execution proceedings were initiated, but objections raised by the judgment debtor (appellant) included allegations that the decree was not properly executed because the draft sale deed was not served upon him, and the sale was executed without considering his objections (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

• The objections of the judgment debtor regarding the execution of the sale deed and the alleged discrepancy in the property survey numbers were dismissed by the courts, which held that the property in question was correctly identified and that the execution was in accordance with the decree (!) (!) .

• The courts emphasized that the proper procedure under Order XXI Rule 34 requires the draft sale deed to be prepared, served upon the judgment debtor with a notice of objections, and only after considering objections, the court can approve or modify the draft before executing the sale deed (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

• The courts found that in this case, the draft sale deed was not served upon the appellant, and the sale was executed without inviting or considering his objections, which contravenes the mandatory procedural provisions (!) (!) (!) .

• The appellate court directed that the draft sale deed be provided to the appellant within two weeks, and he be allowed to file objections within three weeks. The court would then decide on these objections after hearing both parties (!) .

• If the draft sale deed is found to be non-compliant with the decree, the sale will be set aside, and fresh proceedings will be initiated to ensure proper compliance with the decree (!) .

• The parties are to bear their own costs, and all further proceedings based on the executed sale deed are to be kept in abeyance until the court completes the review of the objections and ensures the decree's proper execution (!) (!) .

• The courts reiterated the importance of strict adherence to procedural law to prevent miscarriage of justice and avoid future litigation arising from procedural lapses (!) (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you require a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.