Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Executing Court dated 14.8.2003 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa and order dated 2.11.2004 passed by the learned Addl.District Judge, Sirsa, whereby objections filed by the appellant were dismissed.

2. The case set up by the appellant is that Sohan Lal-judgment debtor (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 2) was in possession as absolute owner of the land measuring 7 kanals 14 marlas (in short, the land in dispute) being 1/2 share of the total area of 15 kanals and 8 marlas comprised in Rectangle No. 85, Killa No. 14/2 (7-8) and 15 (8-0) situated in the revenue estate of village Sultanpuria, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.

3. Respondent No. 2. entered into an agreement with the objector/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) for the sale of the land in dispute @ Rs. 80,000/- per acre and executed an agreement of sale dated 31.3.1998 and had received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards earnest money from the appellant. Date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 30.3.1999 but actual possession of the land in dispute was delivered to the appellant on 30.4.1998 in part performance of the said agreement of sale. Since the sale deed could not be registered on 30.3.1999, therefore, time was extended with mutual agreement and all other terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement were kept intact. The time for registration was further extended up to 4.7.2000 with all the terms and conditions remaining the same. As per the case of the appellant, the sale deed in respect of the land in dispute was executed in her favour on 30.6. 2000 by respondent No. 2 on receipt of the entire balance sale consideration before the Sub Registrar and symbolic possession was delivered to her and thereafter, she has been in continuous cultivating possession as absolute owner. According to the appellant, respondent No. 2, in the meantime, colluded with the decree holder (hereinafter referred as as respondent No. 1.) and executed a fictitious agreement of sale in respect of the land in dispute in his favour on 21.6.1999 despite having already executed the agreement of sale dated 31.3.1998 in favour of the appellant and the sale price was fictitiously settled @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre. The date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 22.12.1999. However, the said date was mutually extended to 4.1.2000 on which date, respondent No. 1. is stated to have attended the office of the Sub Registrar, Rania, for registration of the sale deed in his favour but respondent No. 2. is alleged to have failed to come present and, thereafter, respondent No. 1 issued a notice to respondent No. 2. calling upon to execute the sale deed on or before 3.2.2000. Respondent No. 1 is stated to have gone to the office of the Sub Registrar on 3.2.2000, but respondent No. 2 is alleged to have not turned up and consequently, respondent No. 1 filed a suit for possession of the land in dispute by way of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 30.6.1999 on 1.5.2000 against respondent No. 2. only and the appellant was not deliberately made a party to the suit.

4. According to the appellant, respondent No. 2 appeared in the suit and filed written statement taking wholly frivolous and irrelevant pleas and did not disclose the agreement of sale already executed by him in favour of the appellant on 31.3.1998 and also about the delivery of possession of the land in dispute to the appellant and receipt of earnest money of Rs. 50,000/- . All these facts have not been disclosed in the second agreement of sale dated 30.6.1999 executed in favour of respondent No. 1. It is further the case of the appellant that respondent No. 1 adduced his complete evidence set up in the plaint but respondent No. 2 did not deliberately contest the suit and led no evidence despite opportunities having been granted by the Court and consequently, his defence was struck off. The suit was de