JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.1.2010 whereby the learned executing Court below overruled the objections of the judgment debtors LRs of Radhu S/o Modji Sanadhya, R/o Kankroli i.e. Gopal Lal in execution case No. 3/2008 whereby the main objection of the present petitioner/ judgment debtor that the kahsra number in the draft sale deed has been changed to another khasra number in final registered sale deed executed by the learned trial court in pursuance of a decree of specific performance on 23.2.2007. 2. Mr. R.K. Thanvi, learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor submits that no such change of description of land in question could have been made in the final registered sale deed ex-parte to the present petitioners/ judgment debtors and, therefore, the objections have been wrongly overruled by the court below. 3. On the other hand, Mr. S.L. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder submits that in the impugned order the change of khasra numbers on account of change in the revenue records in a normal process since the time of settlement in the samwat year 2055 has been explained and the same was done on the basis of report of the Tahsildar referred in para No. 1 and 2 and at internal page 3 of the impugned order dated 18.1.2010 passed by the learned court below. The said khasra No. 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 316, 317 and 318 have been changed to 568, 569, 670, 571, 572, 473, 574, 575, 576, 577 and 578 in the said sale deed and the measurement in the said sale deed on account of such renumbering of khasra is given as 12 bighas 2 biswas. 4. This confusion appears to have arisen in the execution of the decree dated 18.11.1987 because along with new Araji numbers in the said registered sale deed, the old Araji numbers were not mentioned in registered sale deed and this led to the objections being filed by the present petitioner/judgment debtor. 4. This confusion appears to have arisen in the execution of the decree dated 18.11.1987 because along with new Araji numbers in the said registered sale deed, the old Araji numbers were not mentioned in registered sale deed and this led to the objections being filed by the present petitioner/judgment debtor. Otherwise it appears that in the impugned order passed by the learned court below that the same land in question has been transferred to the decree holder in pursuance of the aforesaid decree for specific performance and on account of change of khasra numbers in the draft sale deed are different khasra number (old one) were mentioned whereas in the final sale deed executed on 23.2.2007 new khasra numbers have been mentioned. 5. The said confusion can be removed and clarity can be achieved in this regard by execution of supplementary sale deed in favour of the decree holder as a supplement to the said sale deed dated 23.2.2007 in which description of the suit along with new khasra numbers and old khasras numbers both may be stated simultaneously, giving reference to the report of Tahsildar referred to in the impugned order dated 18.1.2010 which clarifies as to how old numbers can be changed into new numbers and different measurements. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the learned executing court to execute a supplementary sale deed to the registered sale deed dated 23.2.2007 at the cost of the decree holders giving khasra numbers as it now exists along with old khasra numbers as per the earlier revenue record referred to in the impugned order so that there is no confusion about the same. The same may be done within a period of 4 weeks from today. 7. Both the parties will appear before the learned executing Court in this regard on 8, March, 2010 and submissions/objection of the present petitioner, if any, shall also be decided immediately. The said process shall be done within four weeks from today.Petition disposed of. *******