Court No. - 40
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6046 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shyam Narayan Yadav Respondent :- Swastik Seva Sansthan Counsel for Petitioner :- Viveka Nand Rai,Sanjeev Kumar Rai Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The instant petition is directed against the order dated 3.5.2019 passed by Executing Court in Misc. Case No.103 of 2018 and order dated 21.5.2019 in Revision No.NIL of 2019 passed by the District Judge. The petitioner is judgement debtor. A decree of specific performance of an agreement to sell is under execution. The petitioner filed objection against the execution application on the ground that the agreement to sell was in respect of 70 karis only. The decree passed was also in respect of 70 karis, but the execution application has been filed for obtaining sale deed in respect of an area measuring 90 karis. The Executing Court, while entertaining the objections, stayed the execution proceedings until the objections are decided. Another application filed by the petitioner Paper No.14 Ga (2) for leading oral evidence in support of his objection was rejected by the Executing Court on the same date on the ground that the petitioner had not clarified why oral evidence is required in the matter. According to the Executing Court, unless the said aspect is clarified, the application could not be allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed revision, which has also been dismissed by the order impugned herein on the ground that the revision was not maintainable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to satisfy this Court as to why oral evidence is required to be led. He fairly admits that the issue as to whether execution application in respect of 90 karis of land is maintainable or not has to be decided on basis of documentary evidence i.e. plaint and the decree passed in the suit.
Having regard to the said aspect and the fact that counsel for the petitioner himself admits that documentary evidence would be sufficient to decide the issue raised in the objections under Section 47 CPC, this Court does not find it a fit case for interference in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J) Order Date :- 26.9.2019 SL