Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J.

This civil revision has been filed against the order dated 31.07.2018 passed by court below in execution petition, whereby applications filed by the petitioner in the execution petition have been dismissed.

2. The factual backdrop of the case in hand is that the respondent Veena Devi, preferred a suit in the Court of Munsiff Jammu for possession of the land measuring 01 Kanal comprising Khasra No.522-min, Khewat No.13, Khata No.287 situated at Village Sunjwan, Tehsil and District Jammu and for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner-Ashok Singh to remove the construction so raised over the said land on the ground that the husband of the respondent namely Sh. Brij Mohan Gupta has purchased the said land, (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) of which the mutation has been attested in favour of her husband and the petitioner has raised construction over the same and based her claim on the basis of the report of the concerned Revenue Agency.

3. Notice was issued for appearance to the petitioner/defendant for appearance on 9th of December, 2013 and on 9th December, 2013 the Court below directed to issue fresh summons against the petitioner herein to procure his attendance and the next date was fixed for 3rd January, 2014 and afterwards on 16th January, 2014 the Court below marked the absence of the petitioner and fixed the date for 10th February, 2014. On the next date i.e. 12th March, 2014 the statement of the Process Server was recorded by the Court below for service which was affected for 9th December, 2013 on petitioner and the ex-parte proceedings were initiated and ultimately the ex-parte proceedings culminated into a decree passed by the learned court below on 31st May, 2014.

4. After passing of the ex-parte decree the execution petition was preferred by the respondent and the Court issued notice to the petitioner. The petitioner preferred application for setting aside the ex-parte decree which came to be dismissed in default of the appearance of the petitioner as the application was fixed for 10th January 2016 which was a Gazetted Holiday and the file was taken up on 11th January, 2016 and the same was dismissed for want of prosecution illegally in view of the fact that the case was taken up on the next day after holiday.

In the execution petition the petitioner took the plea that the decree is declaratory in nature and cannot be allowed to sustain and being ambiguous decree as the suit land has not been identified in the decree. It was also submitted in the objections to the execution application that the land comprising Khasra No.522-min, Khewat No.13, Khata No.266-min measuring 19 Marlas has been purchased by the petitioner vide Sale Deed dated 8th October, 2002 registered with the court of learned Registrar Muffasil, Jammu on the same date and the petitioner is in peaceful possession of the same where the petitioner has raised construction after taking loan and the mutation has also been attested in favour of the petitioner being Mutation No.3461.

5. The Court below in order to ascertain the truth to identify the land appointed the Commissioner and the Commissioner on surmises and conjectures demarcated the land of the petitioner and that of the respondent and the Court issued warrant of attachment against the petitioner vide order dated 23rd November, 2017.

The petitioner filed application for recalling the order of attachment dated 23rd November, 2017 before the Court below taking the plea that the decree itself is not executable and the demarcation was not conducted properly by the officials of the Revenue agency as the land bearing Khasra No.522 is a big chunk of land and cannot be said that the land is belonging to the decree holder-respondent, and the possession is to be given to her. It was also averred that the Trial court failed to consider the fact that since 2002 after purchasing the land the construction was raised by the petitioner and the respondent preferred the suit