ORDER

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 26.11.08, passed by the Court of VIIIth Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Ujjain in Execution Case No. 6-A of 1991, whereby the petitioner's objection questioning the jurisdiction of Executing Court has been rejected.

2. Brief facts are that in 15.11.1986, the petitioner had sold 7,200 sq.ft. of lands with some construction standing thereon for Rs. 7.20 lakh to the respondent and was paid Rs. 01.60 lakh only. He had agreed to accept the remaining amount of Rs. 05.60 lakh in four instalments in three years with interest @ 1.5% per month. The charge was created on the sold property. Instalments as fixed above were not paid by the respondent which led to the filing of Civil Suit No. 13-A of 1989 (New No. 16-A of 1991) by the petitioner for recovery of amount of Rs. 6, 31, 750/-by sale of the suit property. The liability to pay Rs. 5.00 lakh plus interest was admitted by the respondent in the written statement. The suit was decreed by the Court of learned Addl. District Judge in terms of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the following terms:

As a result application of plaintiff is partly allowed and it is hereby ordered that defendant Nos. 1 and 3 shall pay within 6 months from today Rs. 5,65,000/- and interest @ 1% per month on Rs. 5.00 lakh from the date of institution of suit i.e. 16.6.1989, otherwise the plaintiff would be entitled to get a final decree for recovery of his amount by sale of charged property. Order as to cost would be given at the time of disposal of other points. A preliminary decree be framed accordingly. Description of charged property be also given in preliminary decree.

3. A preliminary decree was accordingly prepared. On 28.4.1992, the petitioner filed an application for execution. The issue of executability of the preliminary decree came up and the Court on 16.8.1997 held that there was no need of framing the final decree separately, as the preliminary decree in itself was executable. In course of execution proceedings, warrant of attachment was issued and thereafter sale proclamation was issued on 2.2.1998. The Court by order dated 5.1.1998 had permitted the petitioner-decree holder to bid in the auction of the attached property. After issuing warrant of auction, the bids were invited and petitioner-decree holder offered the highest bid which was accepted. The sale was confirmed and made absolute on 4.5.1998. The petitioner and respondent filed I.A. No. 1 to LA. No. 6 raising several objections claiming different reliefs before the Executing Court.

4. On the orders passed on these I.As., the matter travelled to the High Court in Misc. Appeal No. 52 of 2004. The High Court by order dated 28.4.2004 disposed of the Misc. Appeal, dismissing the I.As. 1,2 and 6, by holding that the auction sale in favour of the petitioner was valid and upholding the order of its confirmation. On I.As. Nos. 1,3,4 and 5, the Executing Court was directed to take fresh decision on merits.

5. Against the order of High Court Civil Appeal No. 2598 of 2005 was preferred before the Supreme Court by the respondent-judgment debtor. The Supreme Court by order dated 2.4.2008, disposed of Civil Appeal No. 2598 of 2005 by issuing following directions:

We do not think it necessary to deal with those aspects in detail in view of the order proposed to be passed. From the records it is revealed that Rs. 14,38,893/- and Rs. 4, 46,926/- have been deposited by the appellant purportedly for satisfaction of the Execution Court, Ujjain and Indore respectively. The appellant shall further deposit a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- within 4 months from today. The respondent No. 1 shall be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited in the Bank with accrued interest. The appellant shall be responsible for payment of the property tax of the property from the date of execution of sale deed i.e. 5.12.1986 till date and the same shall be paid deposited with the conc