JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

1. The instant revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails order dated 16.05.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sonepat, vide which the execution petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether in a suit for specific performance, wherein the relief of possession had not been prayed for, could the executing Court have granted possession or would the plaintiff have to seek amendment and thereafter seek possession or whether a decree for specific performance would include the relief of possession.

3. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that the petitioner-Jitender (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner-plaintiff-decree-holder') instituted a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 09.09.2009, stated to have been executed by respondent-defendant No.1 (Kuldeep) in favour of petitioner-plaintiff-decree-holder for sale of a residential house/plot measuring 250 sq. yds., comprised in Rectangle and Killa No.6/18/2 min situated in Village Garhi Brahmnan (known as Shastri Colony at the time of filing of the suit), Gali No.3, Sonepat, for a total sale consideration of Rs.30 lakhs. A sum of Rs.13 lakhs was paid as earnest money and the sale deed was to be registered on or before 08.09.2010. In July 2010, respondent-defendant No.1 executed a sale deed for 93.33 sq. yds. in favour of defendants-respondents No.2 and 3 (Prem Singh and Suresh Kumar) for a sum of Rs.3,73,500/-, which led to the filing of the suit in August, 2010. The respondents-defendants shall collectively be referred to as the respondents-defendants-judgment debtors.

3.1 The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 19.01.2017 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sonepat. A decree for specific performance of agreement to sell was passed and respondent-defendant No.1 was directed to execute sale deed qua the suit property on receipt of balance consideration of Rs.17 lakhs. Further, sale deed dated 23.06.2010 executed by respondent-defendant No.1 in favour of respondents-defendants No.2 and 3 was declared to be null and void.

3.2 An appeal was preferred by respondent-defendant No.1 only, wherein respondents-defendants No.2 and 3 were impleaded as proforma respondents. The said appeal was dismissed by the Court of Addl. District Judge, Sonepat vide judgment and decree dated 20.08.2018. Notably, respondents-defendants No.2 and 3 did not contest and were proceeded against ex parte. Still further, respondents-defendants No.2 and 3 did not prefer any separate appeal.

3.3 The appeal having been dismissed, an execution application (Annexure P-1) was moved by the petitioner-plaintiff-decree-holder.

3.4 During the pendency of the execution petition, an objection petition was filed by respondent-defendant No.1 (Kuldeep). It was averred that Kuldeep Singh was not competent to execute any agreement to sell as his title was defective. It was also mentioned in the objection that sale deed dated 18.11.2022 had been executed in favour of the decree-holder pursuant to the suit having been decreed and appeal having been dismissed. It was further averred that in the alleged agreement to sell dated 09.09.2009, there were no terms and conditions as regards delivery of possession and, therefore, the question of delivery of possession in an execution petition did not arise. It was also averred that no relief of possession had been sought in the suit nor had any relief regarding possession been granted and only a decree for specific performance was passed. Under the circumstances, no warrants of possession could be issued. The last objection that was raised was that judgment debtors/objectors were not in exclusive possession of the suit property and, therefore, the question of delivery of exclusive possession did not arise.

3.5 The objection petition was op