ORDER

Heard through video conferencing.

Heard on the question of admission.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/decree holder

seeking the following reliefs:-

“A. It is therefore humbly prayed that to issue appropriate direction/order to the Executing Court to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner without any further procedural compliance or delay treating that respondent has no objection in execution thereof as respondent failed to appear in the proceeding.

B. To take the execution case on daily basis and to execute the decree with further direction to the Learned District Judge, Indore to observe the compliance of this Hon’ble Court direction and if necessary than to take appropriate steps to transfer the case in his Court for such compliance.

C. Costs of the petition be awarded to the petitioner from the respondents.

D. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem just in the facts of the present case be granted in the favour of the petitioner.”

2. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that he had filed a suit for specific performance of contract in respect of an agreement executed between the parties in the year 1997, wherein the decree was passed on 29.09.2000 and it was ordered that the plaintiff shall tender the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,65,000/- to the defendant and in case of refusal by the defendant, the amount shall be deposited in the Court with 12% interest on the remaining amount and after this condition being complied with, the defendant shall execute the sale deed of House No.148 of Jaora Compound in favour of the plaintiff/decree holder and also participate in the registration process before the Sub-Registrar Property Assurance Office. The aforesaid decree was assailed by the judgment debtor in First Appeal No.855 of 2000 before this Court, which came to be dismissed on 20.9.2018 and an S.L.P. No.23686 of 2019 preferred against the aforesaid judgment in the first appeal has also met with the same fate on 27.9.2019.

3. The case of the petitioner is that in the meantime, i.e. on 9.7.2019, an execution proceeding bearing No. EXA/82/2019 was also initiated by the petitioner/decree holder and on 4.10.2019, the counsel for the respondent/judgment debtor appeared before the Executing Court and also obtained the copy of the execution application and the next date was fixed on 6.11.2019 but after 4.10.2019, the counsel for the judgment debtor stopped appearing in the Executing Court where a draft sale deed was also filed by the decree holder as provided under Order 21 rule 34 of C.P.C. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Judge of the Executing Court, instead of proceeding further with the execution of the sale deed has issued notice to the respondent/judgment debtor as to why the sale deed of the suit property should not be executed by the Court in favour of the decree holder in terms of sub-rule (2) of Order 21 rule 34 of C.P.C.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the judgment debtor Smt. Gyan W/o Late Dr. Indra Bhargav, after appearing through her Counsel in the Executing Court on 4.10.2019, has deliberately not appeared before the Court with a view to further delay the execution of the sale deed and after 6.11.2019, the matter has been fixed on 7.1.2020, 28.1.2020, 11.2.2020, 18.2.2020 and 4.3.2020 as the draft sale deed was not approved by the judgment debtor.

5. Counsel has submitted that after 20.3.2020 lockdown commenced on account of Covid-19 and again the proceedings have come to a halt. Counsel has submitted that the suit was filed in the year 1997 and the decree was passed in the year 2000 and thus it has been almost 23 to 24 years since the filing of the suit, and around 20 years since the decree was passed in favour of the petitioner/Decree holder. Counsel has submitted that the petitioner is also 77 years old and if the execution proceedings continuous with the same pace, it is unlikely that he would ever live to see the fru