ORDER :

Instant Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, lays challenge to order dated 9.3.2020, passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., whereby an Execution petition No.66/X/2018, having been filed by the petitioner-Decree holder (hereinafter referred to as the DH) under Order XXI Rules 11(2), 95 and 96 CPC, came to be dismissed.

2. For having bird’s eye view, certain undisputed facts as emerge from the record are that a civil suit bearing No. 3-P/1/95/90 for recovery of money having been filed by the Decree holder, Sh. Santosh Kumar Sood against the person namely, Sh. Amar Nath Sood came to be decreed for sum of Rs. 4,40,162/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. June 1987 vide judgment and decree dated 16.05.1997, passed by learned District Judge, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. Decree holder filed an Execution petition for execution of aforesaid judgment and decree and therein filed an application for attachment of the property of the judgment debtor Sh. Amar Nath. In execution proceedings, warrants of attachment of properties were issued and thereafter properties were put to sale. Sale of property was opposed by the respondent judgment debtor on various grounds, however fact remains that judgment debtor purchased attached property for partly sum of Rs. 30,000/- and learned executing court allowed the execution petition as partly satisfied. Decree holder filed petition before this Court against aforesaid order passed by learned District Judge. This Court set-aside the sale and ordered for restoration of the execution petition to its original number. Warrants of sale were issued more than once and at one point of time, respondent/objector Ashok Kumar purchased a truck from the judgment debtor and made a statement to pay sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in lieu of the truck to the Decree holder, but he failed to adhere to his assurance and filed review application in execution petition with a prayer to review the order dated 6.6.2006. Review application having been filed by objector-respondent herein was rejected vide order dated 5.12.2007, whereafter he being aggrieved, filed petition before this Court, which again came to be rejected vide order dated 7.8.2007. Since, attached property was not being sold despite best efforts, Decree holder with the permission of the Court participated in the sale and purchased the alleged property for sum of Rs. 13,21, 445/-. After purchase of sale property by Decree holder, sale certificate though was issued in his favour, but since some of the properties put to auction were not mentioned therein, he filed an application under Sections 151, 152 and 153 CPC , praying therein for amendment/correction in sale certificate dated 11.11.2009. Decree holder averred in the application that sale certificate issued in his favour was not issued in terms of the Order 21 Rule 68 CPC as the same did not contain the necessary detail in respect of auction/sale. Respondent No.2/ objector contested the application claiming therein certain interest in the property. Learned Executing Court while allowing the application concluded that sale certificate was required to be issued as per sale warrants, wherein description of attached property of the judgment debtor had been mentioned vide para-I to xiii, whereas in the sale certificate, the shops, residential area as stated in para No.VI, VIII, XI, XII and XIII had been excluded, therefore, correct certificate be issued after including this property.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid order passed by executing court, respondent/objector filed CMPMO No.16 of 2018 in this Court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 23.8.2018 (Annexure P-1). While dismissing the petition having been field by the respondent/objector, this court having taken note of the fact that Decree holder despit