Judgment By way of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 23-04-2005 (which has been annexed as annexure no. 7 of this writ petition) passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/IIIrd Fast Track Court, Dehradun in Misc. case no. 39 of 2004 Rakesh Kumar Vs. Indresh Kumar and another. 2. Brief fact giving rise to this writ petition are that in a suit, decree was obtained by the respondent no. 2 and thereafter application was filed by the judgment debtor during the execution proceedings u/s 47 of C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. This application was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division vide order dated 06-10-2004. Thereafter, another application was filed be the petitioner stating therein that the judgment and decree passed in the suit is not executable being null and void, hence the execution be dismissed. 3. The decree holder, i.e. Indresh Kumar (respondent no. 2) filed an application before the court below stating therein that previously also an application was filed u/s 47 C.P.C. on 28-09-2004 which was ultimately decided by the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division on 06-10-2004 and against this order dated 06-102004 no remedy was availed. Hence this order dated 06-10-2004 has become final and this application is barred by the principle of res judicata. 4. Learned court below after having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence, was pleased to dismiss the application filed by the judgment debtor u/s 47 C.P.C. vide order dated 23-04-2005. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order, this writ petition has been filed before this court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in view of the mandatory provisions of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act 1950 as amended in Uttaranchal, the agreement to sell prior to 12-09-2003, cannot be executed after 31-03-2004 in view of Section 154 of amendment Act. 7. It has also been submitted that the amended rules 1953 confer, the power of the Collector to extend the time for the execution of sale deed In pursuance of the agreement to sell, executed prior to 12-09-2003 only for the period of one year and now since 2 years are lapsed on 31-03-2005, therefore, in view of the aforesaid provision of law, the decree is null and void and can not be executed. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 on the other side, has submitted that the order dated 06-10-2004 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division was final as no appeal/revision or writ preferred against the same and now the subsequent application filed by the judgment debtor is barred by the principle of res judicata. 9. The record reveals that the Civil Judge, Senior Divison has already passed the order dated 06-10-2004 dismissing the application filed by the judgment debtor u/s 47 read with Section 151 C.P.C. and that order was not put to challenge. Therefore, in case if the petitioner who is the judgment debtor has subsequently filed an application u/s 47 of C.P.C., the same is barred by the principle of res judicata. It also reveals from the record that the decree passed in favour of the decree holder Indresh Kumar respondent no. 2 was confirmed in first appeal and thereafter by the High Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the petitioner had already filed application u/s 47 read with Section 151 C.P.C. which had already been earlier rejected by the court below. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported in 1996 SCC page 54 Dr. Ghanshyam Jaiswal Vs. Kamal Singh has ruled that "in case if the judgment debtor has once filed his objection against the decree passed by the Court and that objection has been once dismissed, then the judgment debtor is barred by the principle of res judicata from raising the objection that the decree was vague and incapable of being executed." 11. The another argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that in view of the Section 154 amended Act 1950, the agreement to sell cannot be executed after 31-03-2005 and in the instant case as that time has been lapsed therefore, the decree is null and void and the same can not be executed, appears to be devoid of any force as in the instant case the sale deed which has been executed is not a result of mere agreement to sell but it has been put to execution in view of the decree passed by the court of law. As have already discussed that the decree which was passed in favour of the decree holder, i.e., respondent no. 2 has become final even from the Apex Court of this country. 12. As have already discussed that the decree which was passed in favour of the decree holder, i.e., respondent no. 2 has become final even from the Apex Court of this country. 12. Therefore, I do not find any force in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.