Dev Darshan Sud, J.@mdashThis petition has been filed by the Judgment Debtor against the order passed by the learned Executing Court on 18.7.2008 dismissing the application moved by the Judgment Debtor, petitioner herein, in which number of grounds had been raised for the non-executability of the decree. The application was filed u/s 151 of the CPC (hereinafter referred to as `CPC'') with the prayer that the sale deed executed on 11.12.2006, as per the direction of the executing Court to be executed through the Civil Nazir of the Court, and the order of the Court dated 9.10.2006 be set aside. The Judgment Debtor pleads that a decree was passed by the learned Court on 7.5.1999 in case titled: Ishwar Chand vs. Saroj Bala and the Judgment Debtor was directed to sell 1/4th share to the Decree Holder of Khasra Nos. 532, 534, 536, 537 and 538, measuring 81.6 square meters, corresponding to Khasra Nos. 1005, 1007, 1008, 1009 and 1010, situated in Mohal Ranital, Nahan, District Sirmaur. The decree passed in case titled: Ishwar Chand vs. Saroj Bala holds:
This petition is coming before me (M.K. Bansal) Sub Judge Ist Class, Nahan,District Sirmaur, H.P. in the presence of Shri V.C. Jain, Advocate for the applicant and Shri N.S. Tomar, Advocate counsel for the respondent. It is order that the petition is allowed and accordingly respondent is directed to sell her 1/4th share in the dwelling house in dispute comprising of Khasra Nos. 532, 534, 536, 537 and 538, total measuring 81-06 Sq. Metres corresponding to now Khasra Nos. 1005, 1007, 1008, 1009 and 1010situated in Mohal Ranital, Nahan, District-Sirmour, H.P. to the petitioner at the market value prevalent in Nahan town now a days. However, both the parties are directed to bear their own costs.
2. The pleading is that the Civil Nazir, who was appointed as Local Commissioner, did not have any right to execute an instrument beyond the judgment and decree. In a nutshell the entire sale deed is impugned on ground of mistake in area and location. The application was resisted by the Decree Holder on a number of grounds including delay. The Judgment Debtor has been approaching this Court time and again by way of various petitions. I need to notice only the order passed by this Court in CMPMO No. 240 of 2005, which reads:
''20.5.2006
Present: Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Kaushik, Advocate, for the respondent.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order is modified to the extent that instead of Rs. 22,000/-, the value of 1/4th share of the property, which has been determined by the learned Court below, the respondent shall pay to the petitioner Rs. 30,000/-.Rest of the impugned order is upheld. The respondent undertakes to pay the aforesaid amount to the petitioner before 17th June, 2006. The petitioner shall handover the property in question to the respondent on the day the amount is received.
The petition is disposed of.
CMP No. 375/2005.
In view of the disposal of the main petition, the present application is disposed of.
29th May, 2006
Sd/-V.K. Gupta, CJ.''
I have gone through the record carefully as also the submissions made by the learned counsel on the question of jurisdiction. I do not find any material on the record to justify that the Court below has acted without jurisdiction. On the issue of the identity of the land to be transferred, the decree has attained finality; I find that the objections which have been raised are not in consonance with law and arefrivolous. There is no error of jurisdiction. I do not intend to re-appreciate facts again. Petition dismissed.
