JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner-judgment debtor by this petition has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to assail the impugned orders (Annex.9) & (Annex.10) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Kuchaman City District Nagaur in execution case No. 4/2005. 2. Facts in brief giving rise to this petition are that petitioner-judgment debtor filed a civil suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction against the respondents before the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Kuchaman City. The suit is contested by the respondent and in the written statement, a counter claim is also made seeking mandatory injunction against the petitioner to permit him to make necessary repairs of the northern wall of the house from its posterior side by plastering etc. The said prayer in the counter claim was made precisely on the ground that the wall in question is in dilapidated condition and if it is not repaired in time, it may collapse. The learned Civil Judge after considering the matter threadbare dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff but counter claim of the respondent is decreed with a direction to the petitioner-plaintiff not to disturb and cause any hindrance in carrying out requisite repairing work of this northern wall. 3. Feeling dismayed with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, the petitioner preferred first appeal before the Additional District Judge, Parbatsar and the Additional District Judge, Parbatsar vide its judgment and decree dated 04.12.2007 affirmed the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge. After decision of the learned Civil Judge, the respondent decree-holder laid execution petition but the proceedings remained halted in the execution case due to pendency of the appeal and after dismissal of the appeal of the petitioner, the learned Executing Court proceeded with the execution of the decree. Before the Executing Court, on behalf of the petitioner, objections were submitted and all the objections were rejected by the Executing Court to facilitate the execution of the decree. When the endeavour was made by the respondent decree-holder for carrying out necessary repair work of the northern wall, an application was submitted before the learned Executing Court for providing police aid and permitting him to carry out the necessary repairing work in presence of a lady constable. When the endeavour was made by the respondent decree-holder for carrying out necessary repair work of the northern wall, an application was submitted before the learned Executing Court for providing police aid and permitting him to carry out the necessary repairing work in presence of a lady constable. The learned Executing Court by its order dated 27.01.2009 while considering the prayer of the respondent decree holder and the report of Assistant Nazir provided police aid for execution of the decree. The order to this effect passed by the learned Executing Court is assailed by the petitioner before this Court by preferring CWP No. 1773/2009. When the petition came up for hearing before the Court on 23.07.2013 as agreed by learned counsels appearing for both the parties, the petition was disposed of with following observations:- "2. By the consent of both the learned counsels for the parties, without interfering with the impugned order dated 22.10.2008 passed by the learned Executing Court, it is directed that remaining construction of wall in question between the plaintiff's house and defendant's house shall be completed in the presence of Commissioner appointed by the learned Executing Court to which, both the learned counsels agree. 3. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith." 4. After passing of the order aforesaid by this Court, the learned Executing Court on 27.03.2014 issued necessary directions for compliance of its earlier order dated 27.01.2009. It is the aforesaid direction of the learned Executing Court which is impugned in the present petition. 5. In this petition, an additional affidavit is filed by the petitioner on 07.10.2014 and thereupon notices were issued and interim stay was granted by this Court to the extent that no construction/repairing work of the wall be undertaken by the respondent until the disposal of the application submitted by the petitioner before the Executing Court under Section 151 CPC. After the stay order, the learned Executing Court considered the application of the petitioner under Section 151 CPC and the same was disposed of by the order dated 06.08.2015 which is placed on record by the petitioner with the additional affidavit dated 02.09.2015. After the stay order, the learned Executing Court considered the application of the petitioner under Section 151 CPC and the same was disposed of by the order dated 06.08.2015 which is placed on record by the petitioner with the additional affidavit dated 02.09.2015. By the order (Annex.15), the learned Executing Court in adherence of the consent order passed by this Court on 23.07.2013 issued following directions:- vr% iwoksZDr foospu ds lUnHkZ esa vf/koDrk Jh gjnso flag pkS/kjh dks dfe'uj fu;qDr djus ds lEcU/k esa mHk; i{kksa dks dksbZ vkifRr ugha gksus ds dkj.k vf/koDrk Jh gjnso flag pkS/kjh dks orZeku btjk; izkFkZuk&i= dh ikyuk esa fookfnr nhokj dh ejEer viuh ns[kjs[k esa djkus gsrq dfe'uj fu;qDr dj vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd mHk; i{kksa dh mifLFkfr esa fookfnr nhokj dh ejEer viuh ns[kjs[k esa djokuk lqfuf'pr djkdj viuh fjiksVZ 15 fnol dh vof/k esa bl U;k;ky; esa izLrqr djsaA i=koyh okLrs is'k gksus ikyuk fjiksVZ fnukad 21-08-2015 dks is'k gksA dfe'uj [kpkZ en;wu }kjk vnk fd;k tk;sxkA 6. Along with additional affidavit, Annex.16 is also placed on record whereby the parties were informed by the Commissioner appointed by the court. It appears that petitioner was not satisfied with the order passed by the Executing Court and therefore, objections were submitted on his behalf under Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC on 21.08.2015 along with application for stay. An application submitted on behalf of the Commissioner dated 19.08.2015 (Annex.18) appointed by the court was also placed on record. The Commissioner in his application has highlighted the conduct of the petitioner judgment-debtor for not permitting him and artisans with requisite material to carry out requisite repairing work by a lady who was inside the house of the petitioner. The Commissioner has also reiterated that she started making hue and cry and has quarrelled with him. The Commissioner in his application has highlighted the conduct of the petitioner judgment-debtor for not permitting him and artisans with requisite material to carry out requisite repairing work by a lady who was inside the house of the petitioner. The Commissioner has also reiterated that she started making hue and cry and has quarrelled with him. The recitals contained in the application of the Commissioner in this behalf are as under:- " 3- ;g gS fd eSa fnukad 19-8-2015 dks 15 etnwj o dkjhxjksa o feVsfj;y Myokdj gfjizlkn en;wu ds edku ij igqapk rks gfjizlkn ugha feyk mldh vkSjr us eq[; }kj ij vUnj rkyk yxk j[kk FkkA esjs }kjk vkokt yxkus ij mldh vkSjr ckgj ugha vk;h vkSj vUnj ls fpYykus yxh fd eSa ejEer ugha djokus nwaxh vkSj u gh fdlh dks vUnj ?kqlus nwaxh o dksbZ Hkh vUnj vk x;k rks eqdnek ntZ djok nwaxh o gfjizlkn us Qksu ij eq>s dgk fd eSa rks ckgj x;k gwa vkSj jkr dks nl cts vkmaxk esjs vkus ls igys esjs edku ds vUnj ?kqldj vkidks ejEer ugha djokus nwaxkA mlds vius isV~ksy iEi ls nks&rhu deZpkfj;ksa dks Hkh Hkst fn;kA 4- ;g gS fd ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k dh ikyuk esa en;wu gfjizlkn o mldk ifjokj ck/kk igqapk jgk gS rFkk mlds edku edku ds vUnj ys tkdj fMdzh dh ikyuk esa ck/kk igqap jgk gSA dfe'uj dh iqfyl lgk;rk miyC/k djokdj en~;wu ds eq[; njokts ds rkys [kqyokdj ;k rqM+okdj vUnj izos'k dj ejEer djokus ds vkns'k iznku djkos rFkk eq>s dfe'uj ds lkFk U;k;ky; ds lgk;d ukftj dks Hkh Hksts tkus ds vkns'k Qjek;sA " 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.I am aghast that a very trivial matter is sought to be blown out of proportion by the rival parties in the instant case. It is quite distressing that the petitioner judgment-debtor by one way or another is making blatant attempt to thwart the execution of decree, which was passed against him. Upon examining the matter threadbare, this Court feels that petitioner who was originally plaintiff in the suit still carry some grudges against the respondents whose counterclaim in the suit filed by the petitioners is decreed. Therefore, it is a very vital fact where the sue pinches and that is the precise reason that petitioner judgment-debtor is resorting to the unnecessary legal remedies. Therefore, it is a very vital fact where the sue pinches and that is the precise reason that petitioner judgment-debtor is resorting to the unnecessary legal remedies. This petition is a second inning of litigation at the behest of the petitioner inasmuch as while the first petition came up and disposed of by consent of both the parties, he has agreed to permit the respondent decree-holder to carry out necessary repairing work of the northern wall but even after that consent order, repairing works could not be completed because of obstruction by the petitioner. Even the Commissioner appointed by the Court has also reiterated that he has made sincere endeavour to carry out requisite repairing work and visited the house of the petitioner with artisans and building material but he was not permitted to enter in side the house for carrying out the repairing of the wall. This sort of situation is a cause of grave concern. A party to the litigation is not expected to circumvent a decree passed against it which has attained finality. True it is that a judgment debtor is always free to raise legitimate objections under Section 47 CPC but then, such objections are required to be tested on the touchstone of Section 47 CPC and any frivolous or vexatious objection of the judgment-debtor cannot be countenanced in execution of a decree. The rule of law cannot be permitted to be sacrificed at the whims and fancy of the litigant and a litigant cannot be permitted to disown a binding decree nor it can be permitted to cause obstruction in its execution. If the efforts made by the learned Executing Court are objectively construed, then it would ipso facto would reveal that Executing Court has made sincere endeavour to carry out the consent order passed by this Court on 23.07.2013 and appointed a Commissioner to carry out necessary repairing work of the northern wall of the house of the respondent in his presence. The Commissioner thereupon has undertaken the entire exercise but all in vain because of stubborn and recalcitrant attitude of the petitioner and his family members. In the considered opinion of this Court, it is a glaring example of abuse of process of law and is an affirmative attempt of the petitioner judgment-debtor to cause hindrance and obstruction in the execution of a decree which has attained finality. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, it is a glaring example of abuse of process of law and is an affirmative attempt of the petitioner judgment-debtor to cause hindrance and obstruction in the execution of a decree which has attained finality. 8. That being the position, the petition of this nature under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained. Hon'ble Apex Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. v. Rajendra Shankar Patil: (2010) 8 SCC 329 , has issued a word of caution that interference by this Court in the matter of execution proceedings is to be resorted in rarest of rate occasion and not in a routine manner. Looking to the factual backdrop of the instant case, there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the learned Executing Court as these orders have neither occasioned failure of justice nor it can be said that the Executing Court has acted de hors the law or in dereliction of its duty. 9. Resultantly, I find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******