A. Lekshmikutty, J.

The revision petitioner is the judgment-debtor in E.P.No.34/2003 in O.S. No.589/1995 on the file of the Sub Court, Palakkad. The suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement dated 4th August, 1994. The suit was decreed allowing specific performance. Since the judgment-debtor has not executed the sale deed in pursuance of the decree in favour of the plaintiff within one month from the date of deposit of the balance sale consideration before Court, the decree holder got it executed through Court on 2nd January, 2002. But in spite of the execution of the sale deed, the judgment-debtor has not handed over possession of the plaint schedule property to the decree-holder. Hence, E.P. was filed for recovery of possession.

2. The judgment-debtor filed objection resisting the execution. He contended that 0.21, R.35 C.P.C. is not applicable since there is no specific decree for delivery of the property. It is further stated that the decree-holder is not entitled to get possession of the property on the basis of the sale deed executed through Court. Even though in the suit it was specifically prayed for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule prop