The boundaries of the property, as mentioned in the decree, are required to be executed as per the decree and objections raised by the appellant needed to be adjudicated by the executing court before the decree could be satisfied.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.

1. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that this Court earlier in S.B. Execution First Appeal No. 02/2016 dated 22.03.2017 set aside the earlier order passed by the executing court dated 09.02.2016, whereby the objections raised by the appellant were rejected and further directed the executing court to provide reasonable and short opportunity to both the sides for producing the documents upon which they want to rely and to decide the application/objections afresh.

It is submitted that after the aforesaid order, the appellant again submitted a detailed application alongwith the documents and also moved an application under Section 151 CPC seeking an interim order. However, while deciding the application under Section 151 CPC, the executing court again rejected the objections without giving any opportunity to the appellant to prove his case. The original documents which the appellant would have exhibited in terms of the objections raised under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC were not allowed to be exhibited and merely on the basis of the application which has been filed alongwith the xerox copies of the documents, the proceedings were closed and the objections were rejected.

Learned Senior Counsel further submits that before the executing court, the respondent-Rajasthan Board of Muslim Waqf has not even produced the original decree passed in their favour dated 30.01.1971 which was passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 32/1958.

It is submitted that the application for seeking execution mentions different boundaries other than what was mentioned in the decree dated 30.01.1971.

Learned counsel has passed on the certified copy of the original judgment and decree passed by this Court to submit that the original boundaries mentioned in the decree also mention that the appellant's property is on the west side of the Kabristan, which was required to be kept intact in the decree.

Learned counsel submits that in the application moved before the concerned executing court, the boundaries which have been mentioned in the application are different. He submits that the order passed by the learned executing court, therefore, does not take into consideration the submissions as raised by the appellant and as directed by this Court earlier.

2. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Rajasthan Board of Muslim Waqf submits that the execution proceedings are pending since 1982 and relate to a decree passed with regard to properties of the Waqf Board. He also submits that the earlier execution proceedings has also been filed against one Daya Ram in relation to a decree passed against him.

Learned counsel submits that the property has been earmarked in a map which has been duly certified by the State Government, Urban Development and Housing Department, and by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur and marked as property of the Waqf Board. The judgment and decree could not be executed because of frivolous objections being raised from time to time. Learned counsel further submits that the present objectors are actually raising objections at the behest of one Daya Ram who earlier lost in the proceedings all the way upto this High Court in relation to the execution of the decree passed against him and in favour of Waqf Board. It is submitted that before the executing Court, the objectors have stated that they have no interest in common with the interest of Daya Ram. However, in separate proceedings it has been stated by the objector-appellant that he had handed over his part of property to Daya Ram. Thus, contrary stand has been taken in different proceedings by the appellant. Learned counsel has also asked this Court to go through the certified copy of the suit filed by the appellant separately wherein such stand has been taken.

Learned counsel has taken this Court to various orders passed by this Court in relation to the question regarding the earmarking of the land and submits that earlier i