ORDER : V R K Krupa Sagar, J. “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare the action of the Executing Court in registering the sale deed vide Document No.5088 of 2019, dated 06.07.2019 before the Joint Sub Registrar, Tadikonda, Guntur District in favor of the Respondent No.1 as illegal, arbitrary, erroneous as it was registered on fraudulent means and consequently cancel the sale deed registered vide Document No.5088 of 2019, dated 06.07.2019 before the Joint Sub Registrar, Tadikonda, Guntur District by setting aside the order dated 21.06.2019 made in E.P.No.61 of 2018 in O.S.No.111 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, Guntur District and allow the Civil Revision Petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.” 3. Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, the learned counsel for revision petitioners put forth his contentions stating that the execution court grossly violated the terms of Order 21 Rule 34 CPC. The draft sale deed was not served on JDr but the regular registered sale deed was executed and registered through process of court and such sale deed cannot be sustained and cited Rajbir Vs. Suraj Bhan , [ ] . That the execution court ordered for presentation of draft sale deed and non judicial stamps and directed the matter to be listed on 26.07.2019. However, much earlier than that and precisely on 06.07.2019 itself, the execution court got the sale deed registered and fraud was played on the court. Execution court dealt with the matter without proper verification of its own records and no opportunity for JDrs was granted to raise objections about the terms of the draft sale deed. 4. It is further contended, Sri Philips Nethagani who represented DHr society was not entitled to represent the society and that aspect of the matter was not considered by the execution court. For all these reasons, they pray to allow the revision and set aside the impugned order. 5. As against it, Sri M.Rammohan, the learned counsel for respondent No.1/DHr submits that the contentions raised by the JDrs/revision petitioners are incorrect and they do not have any merit. For all these reasons, they pray to allow the revision and set aside the impugned order. 5. As against it, Sri M.Rammohan, the learned counsel for respondent No.1/DHr submits that the contentions raised by the JDrs/revision petitioners are incorrect and they do not have any merit. That the impugned order itself would disclose that the said order came to be passed only after delivering a copy of the draft sale deed to the JDrs and that based on few words incorrectly recorded in the dockets of the execution court, the JDrs took opportunity to perpetuate the litigation and prayed for dismissal of the revision. Whether the impugned order of the execution court is in violation of Order 21 Rule 34 CPC and thereby it requires interference? POINT: - 7. Master Printer Building Society, Guntur filed O.S.No.111 of 2015 against defendant Nos.1 to 3 based on an agreement for sale dated 19.08.2014 and prayed for a decree of specific performance and such other reliefs. 8. After due contest, by a judgment dated 09.10.2015, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri granted the relief in favour of the plaintiff in the following terms. In the result, the suit is decreed. But in the circumstances, without costs, directing the defendants to execute regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff society within 60 days from the date of judgment after receipt of balance of sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. Failing which, the plaintiff society is at liberty to obtain a regular sale deed in its favour through process of law as prayed for. PW1 has no right to seek regular sale deed in his personal capacity. 9. Aggrieved defendants preferred A.S.No.272 of 2015. After due hearing and contest, learned III Additional District Judge, Guntur dismissed the appeal by a judgment dated 23.10.2018. Thus, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court attained its finality. Reported no counter and may be allowed. Heard on both sides and perused the record and petition under or. XX1 R.22 CPC allowed and issue R.34 notice to Jdr 1 to 3 and office is directed to send the copy of draft sale deed for objections through court and RP on payment of process call on 12.04.2019. 34. Decree for execution of document, or endorsement of negotiable instrument. XX1 R.22 CPC allowed and issue R.34 notice to Jdr 1 to 3 and office is directed to send the copy of draft sale deed for objections through court and RP on payment of process call on 12.04.2019. 34. Decree for execution of document, or endorsement of negotiable instrument. — (1) Where a decree is for the execution of a document or for the endorsement of a negotiable instrument and the judgment- debtor neglects or refuses to obey the decree, the decree- holder may prepare a draft of the document or endorsement in accordance with the terms of the decree and deliver the same to the Court. (2) The Court shall there upon cause the draft to be served on the judgment-debtor together with a notice requiring his objections (if any) to be made within such time as the Court fixes in this behalf. (3) Where the judgment-debtor objects to the draft, his objections shall be stated in writing within such time, and the Court shall make such order approving or altering the draft, as it thinks fit. (4) The decree-holder shall deliver to the Court a copy of the draft with such alterations (if any) as the Court may have directed upon the proper stamp-paper if a stamp is required by the law for the time being in force; and the Judge or such officer as may be appointed in this behalf shall execute the document so delivered. (5) The execution of a document or the endorsement of a negotiable instrument under this rule may be in the following form, namely:— “C. D., Judge of the Court of, (or as the case may be), for A. B., in a suit by E. F against A. B.”, and shall have the same effect as the execution of the document or the endorsement of the negotiable instrument by the party ordered to execute or endorse the same. (6) (a) Where the registration of the document is required under any law for the time being in force, the Court, or such officer of the Court as may be authorised in this behalf by the Court, shall cause the document to be registered in accordance with such law. (b) Where the registration of the document is not so required, but the decree-holder desires it to be registered, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit. (b) Where the registration of the document is not so required, but the decree-holder desires it to be registered, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit. (c) Where the Court makes any order for the registration of any document, it may make such order as it thinks fit as to the expenses of registration.] That the present president (Sri Philips Nethagani) is not shown by documents as an elected president of DHr society. DHr failed to produce attested resolution of the society which resolution ought to have been filed showing the present president as the one who was entitled to pray for prosecuting the execution proceedings for obtaining registration of the property. That the sale deed that is to be obtained by DHr society, the corresponding elected body is also to be mentioned in the preamble of the sale deed and unless and until the elected body gives their affidavits about the present execution petition, the execution petition is not maintainable. 13. A reading of the above contents of the counter makes the following aspects very clear. That it does not disclose non receipt of draft sale deed filed by DHr and directed by the court to be served through court process on JDrs. If really, the draft sale deed was not served, an objection could have been certainly raised in the counter itself. On the other hand, one of the contentions raised in the counter refers to the preamble of the sale deed and as to what must be mentioned in the sale deed. Those assertions in the counter are with reference to the draft sale deed as otherwise such assertions could not have been made. 7(iv) The contention of the respondent is that there is no proof that the present President is elected for DHR society and there is no resolution produced by the society and they are liable to produce the copy and hence the EP is not maintainable. On perusal of the decree it is mentioned that the sale deed is to be executed in favour of Master Printer Building Society, Guntur represented by its President Philips Nethagani. Hence already the decree is passed in favour of DHR society and appeal is also dismissed and hence EP Court cannot go beyond the decree. On perusal of the decree it is mentioned that the sale deed is to be executed in favour of Master Printer Building Society, Guntur represented by its President Philips Nethagani. Hence already the decree is passed in favour of DHR society and appeal is also dismissed and hence EP Court cannot go beyond the decree. As per decree, the JDRs have to execute regular registered sale deed in favour of DHR society as mentioned in decree and petition hence the objection raised by the JDRs is rejected. DHR clearly established that the JDRs are liable to execute regular registered sale deed in favour of DHR society as per decree and hence DHR society is entitled for regular registered sale deed as per decree and there is no any objections raised by the JDRs with regard to draft sale deed and hence the said sale deed can be executed as regular registered sale deed. Accordingly this point is answered. (v) In the result, the execution petition is allowed. For draft sale deed Land and for filing NJ stamps for registration, call on 26.07.2019. The learned executing court in paragraph No.7(iv) had dealt with the competency of president Philips Nethagani to represent the decree holder / Master Printer Building Society, Guntur and held that as per the decree, he was the one who was entitled to prosecute the matter on behalf of the DHr society. Referring to that aspect of the matter in the present litigation, the learned counsel contended that Sri Philips Nethagani was not competent and there was resolution of the society dated 20.06.2019 electing Sri Ch Satyanarayana as the president of the society and empowered him to realize the fruits of the decree. Be it noted copy of such resolution was not placed before the execution court and impugned order dated 21.06.2019 does not indicate production of any such evidence by JDrs before the execution court. According to the learned counsel for R1/DHr any such objections about the competence of Sri Philips Nethagani as president of society is a matter that must be agitated in a properly constituted society petition before the competent court and not in the execution proceedings. This court having considered these rival submissions has to record that what was never placed before the execution court cannot be asked to be considered for a decision of this court. This court having considered these rival submissions has to record that what was never placed before the execution court cannot be asked to be considered for a decision of this court. The impugned order specifically mentions that in terms of the decree Sri Philips Nethagani was empowered to represent the society as its president. Nothing contrary can be found here. As per decree, the JDRs have to execute regular registered sale deed in favour of DHR society as mentioned in decree and petition hence the objection raised by the JDRs is rejected. DHR clearly established that the JDRs are liable to execute regular registered sale deed in favour of DHR society as per decree and hence DHR society is entitled for regular registered sale deed as per decree and there is no any objections raised by the JDRs with regard to draft sale deed and hence the said sale deed can be executed as regular registered sale deed. Accordingly this point is answered. 16. The above extracted paragraph of the impugned order makes it crystal clear that according to the execution court, JDrs have not raised any objections with regard to the draft sale deed. Therefore, arguments of the learned counsel for revision petitioners that no such draft sale deed was served on them cannot be countenanced since it is against the facts on record. 17. As per the impugned order one would notice that the execution court passed the impugned order only after serving copy of draft sale deed on JDrs. Since JDrs did not raise any objections on the draft sale deed there was no need for DHr to carry out any corrections in the draft sale deed. In such circumstances, execution court was required to order for production of non judicial stamps and engrossing the sale deed on such non judicial stamps and then take steps to get the sale deed registered. However, in the last sentence of the impugned order, it made a mention for draft sale deed and for filing non judicial stamps for registration. Since the draft sale deed was already there those words are superfluous. In fact, presence of those words gave rise to the present litigation giving an impression that sale deed was executed without giving any opportunity to JDrs to raise their objections on the draft sale deed. 18. Since the draft sale deed was already there those words are superfluous. In fact, presence of those words gave rise to the present litigation giving an impression that sale deed was executed without giving any opportunity to JDrs to raise their objections on the draft sale deed. 18. It may be briefly mentioned here that this court at certain stages called for certain reports from the execution court and reports dated 10.10.2024 and 23.10.2024 were received. This court has perused all those reports. 19. The impugned order was passed on 21.06.2019 and directed the matter to be listed on 26.07.2019. On 26.07.2019, the minutes of the court docket show that Non judicial stamps were filed. Therefore, execution court ordered for registration and directed the matter to be listed on 19.08.2019. However, much earlier to that and precisely on 06.07.2019, the sale deed was prepared and registered on 10.07.2019. It is this aspect of the matter that enabled the JDrs to raise their contest about the fraud being played on the court. It is here that one is required to see the remarks and reports sent by the execution court which are available on record. In the report dated 23.10.2024, the learned officer stated that requisite stamps were filed by DHr on 29.06.2019 and therefore on 06.07.2019 sale deed was prepared and it was entrusted to the field assistant of the Nazarath for the purpose of registration and it was accordingly carried and the sale deed was registered on 10.07.2019 and the field assistant had returned the executed warrant on 20.07.2019. The report of the learned officer of the execution court states that it was out of inadvertence there was incorrect mention in the docket of the execution proceedings. No one can dispute that subsequent to service of draft sale deed and after finding that there were no objections raised by the JDr on the draft sale deed nothing remained with the execution court to hear the matter in a public court since what was to be done thereafter was only to have the sale deed printed on non judicial stamps and taking it to the registrar office and getting it registered and delivering the same to the court appointed officer. Rajbir’s case , [Supra] their Lordships had recorded from the facts that the draft sale deed was never served on JDrs. Rajbir’s case , [Supra] their Lordships had recorded from the facts that the draft sale deed was never served on JDrs. It was in such circumstances, the proceedings were set aside and directions were given to parties and the execution court to take up the task afresh. In the case at hand, there was no such occasion that arose and therefore this ruling does not help the revision petitioners. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.