Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3555 (ALL)

Jag Bhushan Arora v. Sunil Kumar

2016-10-24

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2016
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. – Heard learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. The instant revision is directed against the order dated 31.08.2016 passed by the executing court, whereby an objection under Section 47 CPC filed by him has been rejected. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the execution application itself was defective and, therefore, the order impugned has wrongly been passed. 4. It appears that a suit for specific performance was filed by the opposite party. This suit was decreed. 5. Against the judgment and decree, a first appeal was filed, requiring the present revisionist to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,00,000. 6. Subsequently, another order was passed on 10.04.2015 directing the revisionist, the appellant in the first appeal, to deposit further sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-. It was observed that if this remaining amount was not deposited on or before 10.07.2015, the interim order would stand automatically vacated and the respondent would be free to execute the decree. It appears that the directions contained in the order dated 10.04.2015 were not complied with and, therefore, the decree has been put to execution wherein the order impugned has been passed. 7. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist that the execution application itself was defective, is based upon the operative portion of the impugned order, wherein certain information is to be furnished in Court after obtaining the said information from the Sub Registrar. 8. The submission is that this information should have accompanied the execution application itself and in its absence the execution application is defective. The opposite party in the revision is required to inform as to whether the property in issue is encumbered. 9. In my considered opinion, no prejudice is caused to anybody, in case this information has been called for and is submitted, as directed. 10. Further, a finding has been returned in the impugned order that the decree holder has furnished the proforma of the sale deed to be executed in pursuance of the decree for specific performance in his favour, and the information required to be furnished in this proforma, is duly incorporated therein. Therefore, the objection filed by the revisionist has been rejected. 11. In view of the above finding and in view of what has been stated herein above, I do not find any substance in the revision. The order impugned suffers from no jurisdictional error. Therefore, the objection filed by the revisionist has been rejected. 11. In view of the above finding and in view of what has been stated herein above, I do not find any substance in the revision. The order impugned suffers from no jurisdictional error. 12. The revision is therefore, dismissed. Revision dismissed.