Hon ble TATIA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner to challenge the part of the order dated 19.2.2008 by which the petitioner s objection petition dated 26.8.2004 has been dismissed by the executing court.

3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff Pushpa Devi and Mangi Lal, who is husband of Pushpa Devi, filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendants Bhanwar Singh and Sampat Ram with the allegation that the plaintiffs purchased the plot in dispute from defendant no.2 on 18.7.1978 and also took the possession and constructed boundary wall over the property in dispute. Defendant no.1 wants to forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs, therefore, they be restrained from evicting the plaintiffs from the property in dispute. Defendant no.1-objector submitted that land in question is agricultural land and, therefore, suit of the plaintiff in civil court is not maintainable. The defendant stated that he is in possession of the agricultural land. After trial, the trial court- Civil Judge (JD), Sojat District Pali vide judgment and decree dated 19.3.1997, rejected the defendant s plea that the land in question is agricultural land and also rejected the plea of possession. The defendant Bhanwar Singh has preferred Appeal No.5/97 wherein the appellate court confirmed the finding that the plaintiffs are in possession of the property in dispute and the land in question is not agricultural land. S.B. Civil Regular Second Appeal No.390/99 preferred to challenge the first appellate court s judgment and decree dated 17.9.1999, was dismissed by this Court on 7.4.2003 after specifically upholding the finding of the courts below that the land in question is not agricultural land and title vests in the plaintiffs for the property in question. After dismissal of the second appeal, on 31.5.2004, the decree holder submitted execution petition and prayed that in view of the decree passed in his favour, the decree holder may be given possession of the plot in dispute. In said execution petition, several objections were filed which are (1) petition under Section 47, CPC, (2) application under Section 44 of the evidence Act, (3) application under Order 21 Rule 97, 99, 107 and 103 read with Section 151, CPC and (4) objection petition dated 26.8.2004. All those petitions have been decided by the executing court by common order dated 19.2.2008. Hence this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner-objector.

4. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners supported the order of the trial court.

5. I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. From the bare perusal of the objection petition, it is clear that the contention of the objector-judgment debtor is that the property in dispute is agricultural land. The plaintiff has no title in her favour for the property in question. The defendant was in possession of the suit property. He stated that he purchased the property in the year 1981, whereas the plaintiff s claim is that she purchased the property in the year 1978 but since the land was agricultural land and could not have been sold in pieces and, therefore, sale of 1978 set up by the plaintiff is void in view of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. He also stated that the decree-holder obtained the Patta from Gram Panchayat by fraud. From above facts, it is clear that all above pleas were the pleas which were not only with respect to the facts which were subject matter in the suit itself but also have been decided against the judgment debtor-objector-petitioner by the decree passed by the court and which was upheld ultimately by the High Court. The executing court could not have looked behind the decree and even if the facts are considered then all objections raised by the petitioner are pre-decree matter and already decided matter, therefore, the objection petition

Click Here to Read the rest of this document