Post for

01/07/2021

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)

JUDGE

Pankaj

3

Ashok S/o Nemichand Patni

Versus

Smt. Gyan W/o Late Dr. Indra Bhargav

***************

Shri Yogesh Mittal,Counsel for the petitioner.

* * * * *

O R D E R

( Passed on 01/07/2021 )

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

4

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 20.09.2018

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

27.09.2019..

3.

The case of the petitioner is that in the meantime, i.e. on

09.07.2019, an execution proceeding bearing No. EXA/82/2019 was

also initiated by the petitioner/decree holder and on 04.10.2019, 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 06.11.2019 but after

04.10.2019, 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

5

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 04.10.2019, has

deliberately not appeared before the Court with a view to further

delay the execution of the sale deed and after 06.11.2019, the matter

has been fixed on 07.01.2020, 28.01.2020, 11.02.2020, 18.02.2020

and 04.03.2020 as the draft sale deed was not approved by the

judgment debtor.

5.

Counsel has submitted that after 20.03.2020 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