An application filed by a decree-holder seeking directions to the judgment-debtor to accept the amount and hand over the vacant possession of the property is not an execution application under Order 21, CPC.

Sat Pal, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 26th April, 1996 passed by Sub Judge, 1st Class, Chandigarh. By this order, the learned Sub Judge held that the objection- petition filed by the judgment-debtor (petitioner-herein) was not legally tenable as in these proceedings, the application of the decree-holders was not an execution application. By the said order, the learned Sub Judge also disposed of the application of the decree-holder dated 17.4.1995, holding that the option to purchase the share of the decree-holder was duly granted to the judgment-debtor vide order dated 8.6.1995 and the judgment-debtor was directed to deposit the amount on 29.7.1995, but the judgment-debtor having failed to deposit the same within the stipulated period, the decree-holder had exercised his option to purchase the share of the JD by placing on record the draft of Rs. 2.50 lacs in favour of JD. The learned Sub Judge directed the JD to take the draft of Rs. 2.50 lacs as per Rules in consideration of his share for the demised premises and if he failed to take the draft within 30 days, then the amount of Rs. 2.50 lacs was directed to be deposited in the Treasury for payment to the JD as per Rules for getting the decree-holder declared to be the purchaser of the share of JD. It was also observed that certain steps had to be taken for the execution of the conveyance deed for which the decree-holder could file regular execution application if permissible under law.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-decree-holder (respondent herein) filed a suit for partition and for possession and rendition of accounts in, respect of the damages and usage with effect from 14.7.1973 in respect of House No. 50, Sector 10-A, Chandigarh. The suit was decreed on 30.9.1983. The judgment-debtor (petitioner-herein) preferred an appeal before the District Judge against the aforesaid preliminary decree and the preliminary decree was affirmed with slight modification. The judgment- debtor preferred the second appeal bearing R.S.A. No. 2666 of 1984 in this Court and the said appeal was dismissed by this Court.

On 1.12.1993, while dismissing R.S.A. No. 2666 of 1984, the learned Single Judge had inter alia directed the trial Court to determine the market value and give an option to the appellant to purchase the share of the added respondents. In case he fails to do so within the time, for the purpose, then the trial Court may allow the added respondents to pay the share of Chander Parkash-appellant. In pursuance of this direction, the trial Court vide its judgment dated 22.3.1995 fixed the market value of the property in dispute at Rs. 20 lacs. The decree was accordingly passed.

From the records, it appears that the judgment-debtor filed objection-petition before the executing Court by alleging that final decree as passed by the trial Court was not in conformity with the directions contained in the order dated 1.12.1993 passed by the High Court. Thereafter, the decree-holder by invoking the provisions of Sections 151/152 of the Code of Civil Procedure prayed for suitable modification/correction in the final decree. The application of the decree-holder was disposed of by the learned trial Court vide order dated 3.2.1996 and the following lines were ordered to be added in the decree :-

"Since the mode to bid amongst themselves is not acceptable, the market value has been determined and an option be given to the appellant to purchase the share of the added respondents. In case he fails to do so, within the time granted for the purpose, the added respondents be allowed to pay the price of the share of Chander Parkash - judgment-debtor - defendant."

Against the judgment and decree dated 22.3.1995 the judgment-debtor (petitioner-herein) filed an appeal. On the amendment of the decree, he sought the permission to amend the grounds of appeal and his request was accepted and thereafter the amended grounds of appeal were