JUDGMENT : JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J. 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 17.12.2019 (Annexure P-5), whereby the objections preferred by one of the judgment debtors (present petitioner) filed under Section 47 of the Code Civil Procedure were dismissed. 2. Facts: (i) A civil suit was instituted on 25.06.1991 by the Predecessor-in-Interest of the present respondents, seeking specific performance of the contract dated 11.12.1987. The suit was instituted against one Sh. Mohan Lal, original owner of the suit land. During pendency of the suit, the original defendant died and his legal heirs i.e. Smt. Ram Dulari and Smt. Bachni Devi were brought on record as defendants. The suit was decreed 18.8.2000. The operative part of the judgment reads as under: “14. In view of my findings on the above issues, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs for specific performance of contract to the effect that the plaintiff shall deposit the balance amount of consideration of Rs.5,000/- within a period of month from the date of this judgment failing which the suit of the plaintiff shall stand dismissed and in case the plaintiff deposits the amount within one month, on or before 18.9.2000 then the defendant will execute the sale deed within two months next i.e. on or before 18.11.2000 as per the agreement Ex. PW1/A with regard to the land detailed in sub Para No. 1 and 2 of the head-note of the plaint and in case the defendants fail to execute the sale deed on or before 18.11.2000 the plaintiff shall be at liberty to apply to the court and the Reader of the Court shall get the sale deed registered and the cost of registration and stamp papers etc. will be born by the plaintiff. After the execution of the sale deed, the defendants will be entitled to withdraw the balance consideration of Rs. 5,000/- Decree-Sheet be drawn accordingly and the file after completion be consigned to Records.” The decree for specific performance of the contract was passed in favour of the plaintiff subject to deposit of the balance amount of consideration i.e. Rs. After the execution of the sale deed, the defendants will be entitled to withdraw the balance consideration of Rs. 5,000/- Decree-Sheet be drawn accordingly and the file after completion be consigned to Records.” The decree for specific performance of the contract was passed in favour of the plaintiff subject to deposit of the balance amount of consideration i.e. Rs. 5,000/- within one month from 18.8.2000, failing which the suit of the plaintiff was to be construed to have been dismissed with further rider that in case the plaintiff deposits the balance sale consideration amount within the stipulated period then the defendants would execute the sale deed within two months thereafter i.e. on or before 18.11.2000. (ii) The plaintiff deposited the balance sale consideration amount on 18.9.2000 i.e. within the time indicated in the judgment and decree. However the defendants did not execute the sale deed, therefore, plaintiff preferred execution petition No. 3/2001 under Order 22 Rule 11 CPC on 01.03.2001. (iii) During pendency of the execution petition, one of the judgment debtor i.e. Bachni Devi (judgment debtor No. 2) complied with the decree in respect of her share and executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. However, name of judgment debtor No. 1 i.e. Ram Dulari was found to be differently reflected in the revenue record. This necessitated the plaintiff to institute another Civil Suit No. 58/2006 on 20.6.2006 for declaration to the effect that Judgment Debtor Ram Dulari was also known as Rama Devi. (iv) Considering the pendency of the civil suit No. 58/2006 filed by the plaintiff, Execution Petition No. 3/2001 was disposed of on 20.09.2006 as partly satisfied since judgment debtor No. 2 Bachni Devi had executed the sale deed qua her share. (v) Civil Suit No. 58/2006 was decreed on 16.8.2010. The relief clause of the judgment reads as under: “25. In view of my findings under the issues decided supra, suit of the plaintiffs is decreed with cost and it is declared that the defendant is name Ram Dulari D/o Mohan Lal, resident of village Binewal, Tehsil Garshankar, District Hoshiarpur (Pb) and Rama Devi shown in Ex.P2, as daughter of Mohal Lal, is the defendant, who is also named as Ram Dulari. It is also declared that mutation No. 568 dated 20.10.1992 will have no effect on the rights, title and interest of the plaintiffs accrued to them in civil suit No. 149/91 passed against Ram Dulari etc. Let the decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File, after due completion, be consigned to the record room.” Subsequent to the decreeing of the above civil suit establishing that Ram Dulari is also known as Rama Devi, an application under Order 21 Rule 32 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved by the legal representatives of the original plaintiff for implementing the judgment and decree dated 18.8.2000 in respect of Judgment Debtor No. 1. To this application, objections were preferred by judgment debtor No. 1 i.e. Rama Devi alias Ram Dulari. Her objections were dismissed by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 17.12.2019, which is impugned in the instant petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I have heard learned Senior Counsel of the parties and gone through the records. 4. Contentions: (i) Learned Senior counsel for the judgment debtor Rama Devi alias Ram Dulari, who is petitioner in the instant petition contended that the learned Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the objections preferred by the judgment debtor. The decree-holder had not deposited the balance amount within the time prescribed by the Court in the judgment and decree dated 18.8.2000. Therefore, the execution petition was liable to be dismissed on this very count. Second contention raised is that the limitation for enforcing the decree was three years under Article 135 of the Limitation Act, whereas in the instant case, the application under Order 21 Rule 32 was moved in the year 2011. (ii) Learned Senior counsel for the decree-holders/respondents submitted that the decree-holder/plaintiff had complied the directions given in the judgment and decree dated 18.8.2000. The balance sale consideration amount was deposited in the learned trial Court within the stipulation period. The execution petition was instituted within the limitation period. Therefore, no error has been committed by the learned Executing Court in dismissing the objections. 5. Observations: (i) The record indicates that the decree-holder had deposited the balance sale consideration amount of Rs. 5,000/- on 18.9.2000 as per the directions given in the judgment and decree dated 18.8.2000. The execution petition was instituted within the limitation period. Therefore, no error has been committed by the learned Executing Court in dismissing the objections. 5. Observations: (i) The record indicates that the decree-holder had deposited the balance sale consideration amount of Rs. 5,000/- on 18.9.2000 as per the directions given in the judgment and decree dated 18.8.2000. Therefore, it cannot be said that the decree-holder had not complied with his part as per the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment. (ii) The record also reveals that the execution petition for enforcing the decree was filed on 20.2.2001. The execution petition was, therefore, within the limitation period. 6. Record also shows that during the pendency of the execution petition, one of the judgment debtor i.e. Bachni Devi had executed the sale deed with respect to her share in favour of the original plaintiff. With respect to the second judgment debtor (the present petitioner), there arose a dispute as her name in the revenue record was figuring differently viz-a-viz her name in the judgment & decree. The plaintiff, therefore, preferred a separate Civil Suit No. 58/2006 on 20.06.2006 in this regard, which was decreed in 16.8.2010 clarifying this aspect. It is for this reason that the Execution Petition No. 3/2001 was disposed of as partly satisfied vide order dated 20.09.2006. Subsequent to the decree passed in the Civil Suit No. 58/2006, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 21 Rule 32 for enforcing the judgment and decree dated 18.8.2000 against the left out judgment debtor i.e. the present petitioner. The execution petition, therefore, was not barred by limitation. 7. The objections preferred by the petitioner were based on incorrect factual position and therefore deserved to be dismissed. No interference with the impugned order is called for. Accordingly, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed alongwith other miscellaneous applications, if any. 8. Parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Court below on 20th May, 2021. Records be returned forthwith.