[2026:RJ-JD:19553]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23499/2025 Karnail Singh S/o Shri Sundar Singh, Aged About 95 Years, R/o 3 Fc Jagtewala, Tehsil Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus Shyam Sundar S/o Shri Jugal Kishor Maheshwari, R/o Ward No. 9, Sri Karanpur, Tehsil Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohitash Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitin Trivedi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

(i) Arguments concluded on : 13.03.2026 (ii) Order reserved on : 13.03.2026 (iii) Full order/Operative part : Full judgment (iv) Order pronounced on : . 04.2026

1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner–judgment debtor challenging the order dated 19.11.2025 (Annx.5) passed by the Additional District Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar in Execution Case No. 02/2010 (Shyam Sunder vs. Karnail Singh), whereby objection application filed by the petitioner under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been rejected and the application of the respondent-decree holder under Section 151 of C.P.C. has been allowed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as pleaded in the writ petition, are that the respondent instituted a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell 10 bigha of land of his share situated in Chak No. 3 FC, Murabba No. 19, Kila Nos. 6 to 15. The relief sought in the suit was confined to execution of the sale deed and did not include possession. The petitioner contested the suit, contending that the land in question was joint and unpartitioned, and therefore, could not be specifically sold. The trial court, however, decreed the suit in favour of the respondent vide judgment dated 23.08.2002. Thereafter, execution proceedings were initiated. In the said execution proceedings, the respondent- decree holder filed an application under Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking delivery of possession on the ground that such relief is implicit in a decree for specific performance. The petitioner– judgment debtor opposed the same by filing objections under Section 47 of C.P.C., asserting that the decree did not grant possession and that the Executing Court cannot travel beyond the scope of the decree. It was further contended that the land being joint agricultural land, possession could not be delivered without partition and without impleading the co-sharers, and that the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the revenue court and not the civil court. Despite these objections, the Executing Court allowed the application of the respondent-decree holder on 19.11.2025 and rejected the petitioner’s objections.

3. It has further been submitted that, in the meanwhile, the sons of the petitioner have instituted a revenue suit in respect of the same land before the S.D.O. (Revenue), Sri Karanpur, wherein an interim temporary injunction dated 31.07.2024 is in operation. It has been contended that in view of the subsisting stay order, possession cannot be delivered. Additionally, the land in question is mortgaged with Punjab National Bank, which has not been impleaded as a party, thereby rendering the execution proceedings legally untenable.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Executing Court erred in granting possession by invoking Section 151 of C.P.C., despite the decree did not provide for such relief. It has been contended that it is a settled principle of law that the Executing Court cannot travel beyond the terms of the decree.

6. It has been submitted that the original suit was confined to the relief of specific performance, namely, execution of the sale deed, and neither any prayer, issue nor decree for possession was made. Therefore, possession cannot be granted at the stage of execution.

7. It has been further submitted that the land in question is joint agr