The court emphasized the limited grounds on which a decree is unexecutable and highlighted that the right of the Decree Holder to obtain relief is determined in accordance with the terms of the decree.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Plaintiff/Decree Holder, under Section 115 of C.P.C., aggrieved by the order, dated 26.11.2021, passed by the I-Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, in E.A.No.4 of 2021 in E.P.No.65 of 2006, allowing the said application filed by the defendants/Judgment Debtors, under Section 47 of C.P.C. read with Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking to reject the Execution Petition.

2. The facts in issue are as under:-

3. The revision petitioner/Plaintiff filed O.S.No.13 of 2003 against the respondents/defendants for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 27.05.2003 and also for delivery of vacant possession of the immovable property covered by the agreement by receiving Rs.1.00 lakh being the balance sale consideration. The said suit was decreed on 02.09.2006 directing the respondents/defendants to execute registered sale deed in favour of the revision petitioner/plaintiff within one month from the date of judgment, failing which the revision petitioner/plaintiff is at liberty to obtain registered sale deed as per law through the Court. Since the respondents/defendants failed to execute the sale deed, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed E.P.No.65 of 2006 praying the Court to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule land on behalf of the Judgment Debtors in favour of the revision petitioner/Decree Holder and put him in possession of the said land. During the pendency of the said E.P., the respondents/ Judgment Debtors filed E.A.No.4 of 2021 seeking rejection of the said E.P. After considering rival contentions made by both the parties, the Executing Court allowed the said E.A. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/Decree Holder filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard both sides and perused the record.

5. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/Decree Holder would submit that the revision petitioner/Decree Holder filed O.S.No.13 of 2003 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 27.05.2003 and the same was decreed on 02.09.2006 and thereafter the revision petitioner/Decree Holder filed E.P.No.65 of 2006 for enforcing the said decree; that aggrieved by the decree in the suit, the respondents/Judgment Debtors filed A.S.No.657 of 2006 before this Court and the same was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 26.06.2009 and aggrieved by the same, they filed review A.S.M.P.No.1632 of 2009 and the same was dismissed by this Court vide order, dated 23.03.2010; that thereafter a claim petition has been filed by third party vide E.A.No.3 of 2010 in E.P.No.65 of 2006 claiming interest in the suit schedule property, which was also dismissed with costs on 04.11.2015 and aggrieved by the same, A.S.No.5 of 2016 has been filed before this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 03.12.2020. It is further submitted that during the interregnum period, the revision petitioner/Decree Holder deposited an amount of Rs.2,99,251/- on 04.02.2016 in the trial Court towards stamp duty and registration charges by way of lodgement schedule dated 30.12.2015; that thereafter, the revision petitioner/Decree Holder filed E.A.No.17 of 2016 in E.P.No.65 of 2016 seeking permission to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- which was previously deposited, and the same was allowed on 14.06.2016. It is also stated that during the pendency of A.S.No.5 of 2016, the respondents/Judgment Debtors have executed a registered Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney, dated 24.01.2020 in favour of third parties and thereafter, the respondents/Judgment Debtors filed E.A.No.4 of 2021 seeking rejection of the E.P. It is further submitted that the revision petitioner/Decree Holder also filed E.A.No.13 of 2021 in E.P.No.65 of 2006 along with a demand draft of Rs.1,50,000/-. Therefore, the impugned order is wholly outside the contours of jurisdiction vested under Section 47 of C.P.C. as it fails to establish as to how execution of a decree cannot be proceeded with, that t