JUDGMENT :

PRAKASH GUPTA, J.

1. S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 218/2019 has been filed by the petitioners-defendants judgment debtors (for short ‘the defendants-judgment debtors’) against the order dated 29.8.2019, whereby the objections filed by the defendants-judgment debtors under Section 47 read with 151 CPC have been rejected by the Executing Court. S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 270/2019 has also been filed by the defendants-judgment debtors against the order dated 29.8.2019, whereby the application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs-decree holders (for short ‘the plaintiffs-decree holders’) under Section 148 of CPC read with Section 28 of the Specific Performance Act was allowed by the Executing Court.

2. Facts of the case are that Vaidik Shiv Dutt Joshi entered into an agreement on 2.3.1988 with Shakuntala Devi to sell a house (Municipal No. 4136 to 4139 southern side), Chowkdi Purani Basti, Langar Ke Balaji, Jaipur in a sale consideration of Rs. 5,30,000/-. In this regard, Rs. 31,000/- in cash were paid on 2.3.1988 by the plaintiffs-decree holders and a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- of Corporation Bank was given by the plaintiffs-decree holders to the defendants/judgment debtors as a part performance of the agreement. In consequence of the said agreement, on 2.3.1988 actual physical possession of some part of the property was handed over by the defendants-judgment debtors to the plaintiff-decree holders. After having received the amount of the cheque of Rs. 50,000/- actual physical possession of some part of the property was also said to be given by the defendants-judgment debtors to the plaintiffs-decree holders. On 11.3.1988, Vaidik Shivdutt Joshi, original defendant executed a Will in favour of her daughter Smt. Kamleshwari and three grand daughters.

3. In the year 1991, the plaintiffs-decree holders filed a suit, wherein it was pleaded that as per the terms of the agreement, the defendants-judgment debtors did not hand over the entire suit property by getting it vacated from the tenants nor executed sale deed in their favour nor they obtained No Objection Certificate from the Income Tax Department.

4. The defendants-judgment debtors filed written statement, wherein it was pleaded that at the time of agreement, it was in the knowledge of the plaintiffs that tenants are residing in the suit premises. Under the Rent Control Act, unless the grounds of eviction are proved and decree of eviction attains finality, possession could not have been taken from the tenants. It was further averred that in the agreement, it was nowhere mentioned that the defendants-judgment debtors will hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises. It was further averred that changes were made in the original agreement dated 2.3.1988 and it was agreed that till 24.10.1988, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- will be paid, but on 24.10.1988, yet another agreement was entered into, according to which the plaintiffs-decree holder paid Rs. 50,000/- to the defendants-judgments on the same day and balance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was to be paid by the end of November, 1988. Despite reminders, the plaintiffs- decree holders did not pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the end of November, 1988, as agreed between the parties, therefore, they are not entitled for specific performance of the agreement.

5. Necessary issues were framed and after hearing the parties, the Trial Court vide its judgment dated 26.9.1994 decreed the plaintiffs' suit.

6. The defendants-decree holders filed S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 63/1995 before this Court. On 16.5.1995, the plaintiffs-decree holders deposited the balance amount of sale consideration i.e. Rs. 3,99,000/- in the trial court and thereafter on 5.7.1995, execution petition was filed in the Executing Court. On 20.9.1995, an oral undertaking was given on behalf of the plaintiffs-decree holders before the Coordinate Bench of this Court that the execution would not be pressed till 5.10.1995, which was continued from time to t