The court emphasized the limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 and the principle that a decree, even if erroneous, is still binding between the parties until set aside in appeal or revision.

Sangeeta Chandra, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was the defendant - respondent before the lower court for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 6.4.1993 rejecting the objections of the petitioner under Section 47 as also the impugned judgment and order dated 19.1.2000 passed in Revision No. 60 of 1993 (Pyare v. Beni Ram & others) and revision no. 70 of 1993 (Smt. Jashoda v. Beni Ram) and also for setting aside the proceedings in Execution Case No. 10 of 1999 pending before the Additional Civil Judge.

2. When the original writ petition was filed, it was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India thereafter vide an amendment application allowed on 20 April 2015, the writ petition has been sought to be amended by striking off the mention of the "writ petition" by writing in its place "an application under Article 227" and instead of praying for a writ of certiorari asking for an order to be passed by this Court setting aside the impugned order passed by the lower courts.

3. The facts that have not been disputed by opposite parties i.e. the plaintiffs in the original suit are that there was an agreement to sell signed between the plaintiff, Beni Ram and the petitioner, Pyare along with Bhagirath and Ved Ram and one Smt. Jashoda, wife of Pyare, which was a registered agreement under which 3.12 acres of land, which is part of Plot No. 242 with a total area of 5.6 acres situated in village Gangotri, district Rampur was agreed to be sold for a consideration of Rs. 19,500/- out of which an advance of Rs. 2000/- had been paid. It had been agreed upon between the parties that the defendant - respondent (herein after referred to as the petitioner herein) shall sell 2.40 acres of land out of 3.25 acres of land to Beni Ram, Ved Ram and Bhagirath, who were all related to each other, and 0.85 acre out of said parcel of 3.25 acres shall be sold by the petitioner herein to his wife Smt. Jashoda. It was also mentioned in the said agreement that in case the petitioner needs more money, then the same shall be given by the plaintiffs and in terms thereof Rs. 10,000/- was also paid by Beni Ram on 1.3.1983 of which a receipt was also given by the petitioner to the plaintiff-respondent. In this manner Rs. 12,000/- was paid and only 7500/- remained to be paid and the sale deed was to be executed for 2.40 acres of land. In the said agreement, there was a condition that insofar as Smt. Jashoda Devi, wife of petitioner is concerned, the amount to be spent on registry was to be deposited by the petitioner himself, whereas the expenses that were incurred for registry to be done for sale for 2.40 acres of land, the plaintiff - respondent as well as defendant - respondent nos. 3 & 4 shall pay the expenses i.e. Beni Ram, Bhagirath and Ved Ram.

4. It was alleged in the suit that the plaintiff - respondent asked the petitioner to execute the sale on 11.5.1983 by sending notice by registered post and it was decided amongst the parties that they shall execute the sale deed in the office of the Sub - Registrar on 26.5.1983. There being a local holiday on 26.5.1983 as agreed upon between the parties, the plaintiff - respondent reached the office of the Sub-Registrar on 27.5.1983 i.e. the next date for execution of the sale deed, but the petitioner did not appear for execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff-respondent was ever willing to carry out his part of the agreement and he had expressed his willingness to buy 2.40 acres of land for a sum of Rs. 19,500/-, but the petitioner seemed unwilling to carry out his part of the agreement.

5. In Original Suit No. 50 of 1984, the petitioner initially appeared and filed his written statement. In the written statement, he denied that there was any such agreement between the parties and it was alleged that the agreement was made because the petitioner needed Rs. 2,000/- to meet out his liabilities for payment of electricity dues, fo