1. Order dated 10.07.2018, passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Srinagar, on an application seeking execution/implementation of the decree dated 24.09.1997, is under challenge in this revision petition.

2. Precise factual background of the case, which emerges from the pleadings of the parties, is as under :

(I) In the year 1997, the decree holder, Mst. Zainab Begum, filed a suit for pre-emption against her son, namely, Mushtaq Ahmad (vendor), as defendant No.1 therein (respondent No.1 herein) and Ghulam Nabi Shah (vendee), as defendant No.2 therein, respondent No.2 herein (now dead) for enforcing her right of prior purchase in respect of a piece of land including a shed thereon, which the respondent No.1 had sold to respondent No.2 by virtue of a sale deed registered on 30.01.1991. During pendency of that suit, respondent No.2 further sold the suit property to respondents 3, 4 and 5 and the decree holder (plaintiff) therefore, amended the plaint by impleading respondents 3, 4 and 5 as additional defendants therein.

(II) Respondents did not contest the suit at all and were set ex parte. Respondents (defendants) 3 to 5 were also set ex parte, however, after they had filed their written statement. The suit was allowed and decreed by the trial court in favour of the decree holder (plaintiff) vide ex parte judgment and decree dated 24.06.1997. The decree holder filed execution proceedings on 04.12.1997 against respondents 1 to 5.

(III) The petitioner challenged the ex parte judgment and decree in OWP No. 45/1998 before this Court with the prayer for quashing the same, claiming that he has acquired right in the suit property on the basis of an oral gift made in his favour by respondents (defendants) 3 to 5. A learned Single Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 12.04.2007, allowed the writ petition and set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.06.1997. The judgment of the learned Single Bench, however, was set aside by a learned Division Bench in LPA No. 73/2007 filed by the decree holder (plaintiff).

(IV) The petitioner preferred SLP against the judgment of the learned Division Bench in the Supreme Court, which was withdrawn reserving liberty to seek such other remedy as may be permissible under law. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 47 of the Code before the trial/executing court. The petitioner also filed an appeal against the ex parte judgment and decree before this Court along with an application for leave to appeal for not being party to the said judgment and decree as also an application for condonation of delay.

(V) The leave to appeal was granted by a learned Single Bench of this Court by order dated 24.03.2015, LPA against which was dismissed on 20.05.2015. However, another Bench of this Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay vide order dated 12.10.2017 in COD No. 105/2015 taking the view that the petitioner having filed objections in terms of Section 47 of the Code, he cannot be permitted to prosecute the appeal. The application under Section 47 came to be dismissed by the trial/executing court vide order dated 22.07.2013.

(VI) The petitioner challenged the order dated 22.07.2013 before this Court in C. Rev. No. 43/2013 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 03.07.2018 by observing that the order of the executing court is not without jurisdiction. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a review petition No. 06/2018 but the same stand dismissed by an order dated 25.07.2018.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Mr. Reshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to the provisions of Order 21 Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure along with Section 47 of the Code and contended that the application filed by the present petitioner before the Court of learned 1st Additional District Judge, Srinagar, was required to be allowed in the light of the grounds urged therein. His contention is that since the petitioner has made out a good case for