HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT

JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18631 / 2017

Balram S/o Late mishri Lal, R/o Kota, (Raj.)

Defendant-Petitioner

Versus

1.

Bhairu Lal S/o Shri Tulsiram, R/o Mohalla Kumharan, near

College, District Jhalawar, (Raj.)

….Plaintiff-Non-Petitioner

2.

Shri nain Sukh S/o Shri Pannal Lal, R/o Mohalla Kumharan,

near College, District Jhalawar, (Raj.) (Since Deased) through

Legal heirs;

1/1. Mishri Lal S/o Shri panna Lal, By Caste Kumhar R/o Mohalla

Kumharan, R/o District Jhalawar, (Raj.) (Since Deased) through

Legal heirs.

1/1A Suraj Mal S/o Shri Mishri lal, R/o Kota (Raj.) (Since

Deceased)

1/3A Suraj Bai W/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal, R/o Kota (Raj)

1/4A Smt Shanti Bai W?o Shri DhaniRam, R/o Kota (Raj.)

1/5A Hammo W/o Shri Ghanshyam, R/o Kota (Raj.)

1/6A Kallo Bai W/o Shri Radheyshyam, R/o Village Gosarana

Mokhampura (M.P.)

1/7A Sushila W/o Shri Ghanshyam, D/o Late shri Mishri Lal, R/o

Kota (Raj.)

1/8A Kishani Bai W/o Late Shri Mishri lal, R/o District Jhalawar

(Raj.)

----Respondent

_____________________________________________________

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddarath Bapna

For Respondent(s) :

_____________________________________________________

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Judgment / Order

19/01/2018

The writ petition is directed against the order dated

5.10.2016, whereby the Executing Court has rejected the

(2 of 3)

[CW-18631/2017]

objection raised by the petitioner and has directed him to execute

and perform in terms of the decree passed by the Court below.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two

objections were raised by the petitioner; one relating to wrongful

mentioning of the four boundaries in the application for seeking

adjudication and the second was with regard to limitation in

initiating execution proceedings. It is submitted that while one of

the objection regarding limitation has been addressed, but the

second objection has not been addressed in the impugned order

and therefore the date 5.10.2016 is non-speaking so far as it

relates to objection regarding wrongful mentioning of four corners

and boundaries of the house. The learned executing court has

therefore fell in error as it ought to dealt with both the objections

in the impugned order.

Having heard learned counsel, this Court finds that while

rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner, the executing

Court has only dealt with the objection of the limitation at length

and found that the execution application is in limitation. However,

regarding the second objection, it has directed the petitioner to

perform and execute the decree in terms of the order passed

there within a period of 15 days and receive amount in terms of

the decree from the decree holder. Thus the objection regarding

wrongful entry of four corners and boundaries of the house in the

execution application stand properly addressed as it is not as

there is no direction to execute.

Accordingly the application moved for execution in executing

Court according to the decree of the Civil Court would have to be

(3 of 3)

[CW-18631/2017]

complied in terms of the boundaries as mentioned in the decree

and in terms of the application for limitation so moved.

Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is

accordingly dismissed.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)J.

Anu/60