##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3788

1 CR-647-2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

th

ON THE 30 OF JANUARY, 2026

CIVIL REVISION No. 647 of 2022

ANAND KUMAR AGARWAL

Versus

JAGDISH PRASAD (DELETED) THR. LRS. (A) SMT. YASHODA SONI AND

OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri R.K.Upadhyay, Advocate for applicant.

Shri Sunil Kumar Jain and Shri Akshat Kumar Jain, Advocates for LRs of

respondent.

ORDER

This revision has been filed against the order dated 27/9/2022 passed by III

District Judge, Shipuri in Execution Case No. 8A/2021 by which an application

for adjustment of decree amount has been rejected.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of present revision, in short, are that present

applicant/ plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract dated

30/6/2010 which was executed by the respondent in favor of the present applicant

in respect of a house situated in Ward No. 6, Sunar Gali, Shivpuri. The area of the

property was also mentioned as 551 square feet and the boundaries of the property

etc were also mentioned in the agreement dated 30/6/2010.

3. Respondent filed his written statement and denied the plaint averments

and contested the suit on merits.

4. The trial Court by judgment and decree dated 15/3/2017 decreed the suit.

5. No appeal was filed by the judgment-debtor against the judgment and

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ANAND

SHRIVASTAVA

Signing time: 09-02-2026

10:45:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3788

2 CR-647-2022

decree dated 15/3/2017 and according to the applicant, said judgment and decree

has attained finality.

6. On 3/10/2020, applicant filed an application for execution of the decree

along with the copy of decree. Initially, the trial Court by order dated 6/10/2020

rejected the application for execution on the ground that no boundaries have been

mentioned in the decree and therefore decree cannot be executed. The applicant

filed C.R. No. 235/2020 and the said revision was allowed by order dated

17/2/2021 and the matter was remanded back with a direction to the Executing

Court to decide the execution case as per the decree.

7. An application was filed before the Executing Court pleading inter alia

that in the agreement it was agreed that Rs.16,000,00/- will be paid by the decree

holder to the judgment-debtor, however, after passing of the decree, the judgment-

debtor has sold 48.5 square feet of area to Smt. Pooja Gupta with the consent of

the decree-holder and has accepted Rs.4,55,000/-. It was further claimed that with

the consent of the present applicant, the judgment-debtor has also sold 162.9

square feet of property to Lokesh Soni for a consideration amount of Rs.6 lakhs.

Thus it was claimed that out of total area of 551 square feet of land, 211.4 square

feet of property has already been sold, therefore only 339.6 square feet of property

is remaining with the judgment-debtor and out of total amount of rupees 16 lakhs,

the judgment-debtor has already received Rs.10,55,000/-, therefore it was pleaded

by the applicant that he is ready to deposit the remaining amount before the

Executing Court i.e. Rs.5,45,000/-.

8. The application filed by the applicant was opposed by the judgment-

debtor.

9. The Executing court by the impugned order has rejected the application.

10. Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ANAND

SHRIVASTAVA

Signing time: 09-02-2026

10:45:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3788

3 CR-647-2022

counsel for the applicant that the trial Court has erred in law by holding that in the

civil suit it was not pleaded that the amount paid on account of sale deeds

executed subsequently was to be adjusted. Since both the sale deeds in question

were executed after the decree was passed, therefore there was no occasion for the

applicant to mention this fact in the plaint.

11. Per contra the application is vehemently opposed by counsel for the

respondent.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

13. As already pointed out, an agreem