[2026:RJ-JP:6349]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2653/2026 Bhinwa S/o Jhuntha, R/o Village Kacholia, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur.

----Petitioner Versus Sahdev Kumar Butolia S/o Shri Babulal Butolia, R/o Hanuman Ji Ka Rasta, Chomu.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Judgment / Order

11/02/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 26.11.2025, passed by learned Additional District Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Headquarter Chomu, whereby, the objections filed by the judgment-debtor under Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC has been rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a suit for specific performance came to be filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the petitioner- defendant. The decree dated 06.07.2012 was passed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff.

3. Since that decree was ex-parte, the petitioner-defendant preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC which stood rejected. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred before the High Court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated

12.09.2016 and thus, the decree dated 06.07.2012, attained finality.

4. Thereafter, during the execution proceedings, an application was filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor challenging the validity of the decree on the ground that the agreement to sell was not in fact an agreement to sell but was a mortgage deed. It was also contended in the application that the limitation for execution of the agreement to sell was three years and therefore, the suit was time barred and no decree could have been granted.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that agreement to sell-Ex. 3 is a forged and fabricated and the validity of the same has not been decided by the learned Trial Court. He further contends that the petitioner is not even the owner of the Khasra number of which the specific performance has been decreed for and, therefore, he submits that the decree could not be executed against him. 6. Heard.

7. This Court finds that the decree dated 06.07.2012 has attained finality. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C.Gangacharan vs C. Narayanan; 2000 (1) SCC 459, has reiterated the settled principle of law that a Court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree. The judgment debtor cannot be permitted to attack the decree during the execution proceedings in a manner as to defending the suit.

8. Therefore, this Court finds no error, so as to call for any interference in the impugned order dated 26.11.2025, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

9. With the aforesaid observations, the present Civil Writ Petition is dismissed.

10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(BIPIN GUPTA),J MAHIMA/2