JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. Vide judgment and decree dated 3.8.2009, the Addl. District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereafter ADJ) decreed the respondent-plaintiff's suit for specific performance as under: ^^ifj.kker% oknh jkes'oj feJk dk ;g okn fo:) izfroknh galjkt xqtZj 1]11]000@& :i;s dh cdk;k jkf'k gsrq e; 1-50 :i;s izfrekg izfr lSadM+k C;kt lfgr fnuakd 11-08-2005 ls rkolwyh rd e; okn [kpkZ vnk djus gsrq fMØh fd;k tkrk gSA nks ekg esa cdk;k jkf'k e; C;kt vnk u djus ij oknh fodYi esa viuh oknxzLr lEifr dk dCtk izfroknh ls okil izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA rnuqlkj fMØh ipkZ crk;k tkosA** 2. Admittedly the amount of Rs. 1,11,000/- with interest @ 1 % per month was not paid within two months. Resultantly in terms of the final judgment and decree dated 3.8.2009 the plaintiff in the suit became entitled to possession of the suit property. 3. Briefly stated the background facts of the case are that the respondent - plaintiff - decree holder (hereafter 'plaintiff/decree holder') filed a suit against the respondent - defendant - judgment debtor (hereafter 'defendant/judgment debtor') for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 11.8.20005 or in the alternative seeking declaration of ownership and possession of the Plot No. 19, admeasuring 200 sq. yards in Bal Vihar, Kalyanpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (hereafter 'suit property'). It was stated that in the first instance on 24.1.2005, the plaintiff had executed an agreement to sell, power of attorney and Will in favour of defendant in respect of the suit property. The aforesaid documents executed on 24.1.2005 having erroneously recorded that the vendor had received the entire sale consideration of Rs. 1,60,000/-, it was subsequently modified by agreement dated 11.8.2005 where under against the consideration of Rs. 1,60,000/-, a sum of Rs. 49,000/- was stated to have been receipted and the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,11,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum was to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff within seven months following which a registered sale deed in regard to the suit property was to be executed in his favour. It was submitted that despite the agreement dated 11.8.2005, the defendant had not paid the outstanding sale consideration of Rs. 1,11,000/- along with agreed interest thereon, consequent to which the sale deed in respect of suit property could not be executed and registered in his favour. It was submitted that despite the agreement dated 11.8.2005, the defendant had not paid the outstanding sale consideration of Rs. 1,11,000/- along with agreed interest thereon, consequent to which the sale deed in respect of suit property could not be executed and registered in his favour. It was submitted that at all times the plaintiff was willing to execute a sale deed qua the suit property and registered it in favour of the defendant on payment of the due amount. Yet the defendant was not ready and willing to discharge his part of the obligation under the agreement dated 11.8.2005 even while continuing to be in possession of the property. Resultantly on 27.3.2006, the plaintiff required his advocate to issue a registered notice to the defendant requiring him to discharge his obligation under the agreement dated 11.8.2005, but to no avail. Thereafter on 28.4.2006, a public notice was issued in Dainik Mahanagar Times, a vernacular paper edited from Jaipur, stating that the agreement to sell dated 11.8.2005 for reasons of failure of the defendant to discharge his obligation thereunder stood cancelled. It was submitted that despite the cancellation of the agreement dated 24.1.2005 for reason aforesaid, the defendant was seeking to sell the plot put in his possession by the plaintiff under the now cancelled agreement to sell, power of attorney and Will dated 24.1.2005 as also the subsequent agreement to sell dated 11.8.2005. 4. On service of the plaint, the defendant filed a written statement of denial stating that the entire consideration of the suit property was paid as reflected in the agreement to sell dated 24.1.2005, power of attorney and Will contemporaneously executed. It was submitted that the agreement to sell dated 11.8.2005 modifying the aforesaid three documents dated 24.1.2005 and obliging the defendant to pay the purported outstanding amount of Rs. 1,11,000/- towards sale consideration along with interest @ 18% p.a. was procured on a misrepresentation taking advantage of the defendant's illiteracy. 5. On the pleading of the parties, the trial court framed an issue as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,11,000/- towards sale consideration along with interest @ 18% p.a. was procured on a misrepresentation taking advantage of the defendant's illiteracy. 5. On the pleading of the parties, the trial court framed an issue as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,11,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. as due consideration under the agreement to sell dated 11.8.2005 in respect of the suit property and in the alternative as to whether in the event of the failure of the defendant to pay the due amount, the plaintiff was entitled to the possession of the suit property. On the evidence of the plaintiff and the defendant, the trial court vide judgment dated 3.8.2009 decreed the plaintiff's suit in the manner recorded above. 6. It appears that the judgment debtor thereafter on 5.9.2009 moved an application under Section 28 of the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1963 (hereafter 'the Act of 1963') before the trial court with the prayer that the decretal amount be allowed to be paid by him to the decree holder in installments. Subsequently the judgment debtor moved another application under Order 22, Rule 1 and 2 CPC before the trial court on 1.10.2009 i.e. a mere two days before he was to make the payment of the decretal amount under the final judgment and decree dated 3.8.2009 stating that the decree holder has refused to accept the decretal amount on it being offered to him and praying that it be directed that the amount under the decree dated 3.8.2009 be deposited in the Court's bank account. 7. Matter on the application under Order 21, Rule 1 and 2 CPC was taken up by the trial court on 16.12.2009. The decree holder opposed the application. On consideration of the respective contentions of the judgment debtor and the decree holder, the trial court held that for one the application under Order 21, Rule 1 and 2 CPC was not supported by any affidavit of the judgment debtor nor any document had been filed in support of the application evidencing the offer of decretal amount by the judgment debtor and the refusal thereof by the decree holder. Besides, upto the date of filing the application under Order 21, Rule 1 and 2 CPC or at any time at all the judgment debtor had not offered to deposit the amount under the decree dated 3.8.2009 and the costs, as directed by the Court in court. The trial court also noted that the judgment debtor had also moved an application for deposition of the decretal amount in installments, which had been earlier dismissed. On the aforesaid findings, the trial court concluded that the application under Order 21, Rule 1 and 2 CPC was merely an attempt to delay the payment under the decree. In the process the time period of two months to pay the decretal amount to the decree holder having lapsed, the decree holder was entitled to the alternative relief under the decree dated 3.8.2009 i.e to possession of the suit property. The application under Order 21, Rule 1 and 2 CPC at the instance of the judgment debtor was thus dismissed. 8. It is in this background that the judgment debtor has approached this Court by this petition. 9. On the matter coming up before this Court on 12.1.2010 while issuing notice on the petition, it was directed that execution of the decree shall remain stayed on the condition that judgment debtor deposited the entire decretal amount before the executing court on or before 16.1.2010. The aforesaid amount appears to have been deposited as recorded in the order sheet dated 18.4.2016 in the present petition when the interim order was confirmed. 10. Mr. Ajay Gupta appearing for the judgment debtor submitted that the decretal amount under the decree dated 3.8.2009 having been now deposited within the time extended by this Court, the petition should be accordingly disposed of recording the satisfaction of the decree dated 3.8.2009 and the decree holder be left free to withdraw the said amount from the executing court. 11. Mr. B.R. Rana appearing for the decree holder emphatically submitted that this writ petition is completely misdirected and not maintainable. He submitted that against a final judgment and decree passed by the trial court in a suit for specific performance/declaration/possession, the remedy for the judgment debtor lay in filing of an appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Absent such an appeal, the decree attained finality. He submitted that against a final judgment and decree passed by the trial court in a suit for specific performance/declaration/possession, the remedy for the judgment debtor lay in filing of an appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Absent such an appeal, the decree attained finality. This court exercising its equitable extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or for that matter supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 thereof cannot interfere with the final judgment and decree of a Civil Court. Aside of the contention based on the fundamental principle, of the court not interfering in petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India where alternative remedy was available under a Statute, Mr. B.R. Rana also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sadhna Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd and Another {2003 (3) SCC page 524). Mr. Rana submitted that the petitioner - judgment debtor having admittedly failed to deposit the amount of Rs. 1,11,000/- along with interest and costs as directed by the trial court within two months from the date of judgment/decree rendered on 3.8.2009, the alternative decree of the possession of the suit premises to the decree holder became operative. The decree holder therefore was/is entitled to the execution of the judgment and decree of the trial court as held in the impugned order dated 16.12.2009 passed by the court. He submitted that merely because the judgment debtor has now deposited the decretal amount under the interim order of this Court first passed ex-parte and then confirmed it can be of no avail. An interim order even when confirmed cannot determine on its own without any merit in the main case, the final order being similarly passed. That has to be passed on the merits of the case. The judgment and decree dated 3.8.2009 having attained finality, the consequence of its execution has to follow and the decree holder put in possession of suit property. The judgment debtor can withdraw the amount deposited by him with the executing court under interim order of this Court. Heard. Considered. 12. This Court exercises extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 thereof. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available against orders of the civil court. Heard. Considered. 12. This Court exercises extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 thereof. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available against orders of the civil court. And even under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court cannot appropriate to itself the exercise of jurisdiction of an appellate court, as one under section 96 CPC. A final judgment and decree of the trial court can only be put to challenge by way of Civil Regular First Appeal. The final judgment and decree dated 3.8.2009 passed by the ADJ could not have been modified by this Court by its interim order in the exercise of its powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. This Court is one of record. Its judgments carry precedential value. Orders/Judgments thus have therefore to be passed on solid legal foundations such that they do not create procedural mayhem and result in confusion and uncertainities in the flow of law deleterious to the administration of justice, and leave the litigating public askance. In any event there was nothing extraordinary on record relating to the executing court's order dated 16.12.2009 or a crying need of undoing injustice to modify, ex-parte a final judgment and decree of a civil court in the exercise of superintending jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The fact that in compliance with the interim ex-parte order dated 12.1.2010 passed by this Court, the deposit of requisite amount has been made and the ad interim order affirmed on 18.4.2016, cannot be of any event. Ad interim orders are subject to final judgment. In the instant case the decree holder is entitled to the fruits of a judgment and decree passed on 3.8.2009 which has attained finality. 14. I am of the considered view that even otherwise the application under the Act of 1963 was not maintainable before the trial court in respect of a final judgment and decree. The one under Order 21, Rule 1 and 2 CPC had no merit. The court in its impugned order dated 16.12.2009 has held that the said application was neither supported by any affidavit nor any document to show that the decretal amount had been offered to the decree holder but refused by him. The one under Order 21, Rule 1 and 2 CPC had no merit. The court in its impugned order dated 16.12.2009 has held that the said application was neither supported by any affidavit nor any document to show that the decretal amount had been offered to the decree holder but refused by him. Nor was the decretal amount admittedly ever tendered in court or any other manner known to law. Consequently the final judgment and decree dated 3.8.2009 - following lapsing of 2 months therefrom became operative for entitling the decree holder to take possession of suit property. Mr. Ajay Gupta has not been able to displace the factual foundation of the impugned order dated 16.12.2009 passed by the executing court. 15. In the facts of the case, I find no force in this completely misdirected petition. It is accordingly dismissed.