Ashok Kumar vs Mahavir

L.N. Mittal, J.

CM No. 8230.CII of 2012

Allowed as prayed for. CR No. 1913 of 2012

Decree holder Ashok Kumar has assailed order dated 13.2.2012, Annexure P/4 passed by executing court i.e. learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad by filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Suit filed by petitioner against respondent Mahavir for possession by specific performance of agreement to sell was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 29.1.2011, Annexure P/1. In the said suit, the petitioner alleged that defendant being absolute owner in possession of 5 kanals 2 marlas land of killa no. 25/2 agreed to sell 3 kanals 4 marlas land out of it to the plaintiff.

Petitioner filed application Annexure P/2 in his execution petition seeking execution and registration of the sale deed regarding specific portion measuring 3 kanals 4 marlas described by dimension and boundaries out of 5 kanals 2 marlas land. The said application was resisted by respondent - judgment debtor by filing reply Annexure P/3. Learned executing court vide impugned order Annexure P/4 dismissed application Annexure P/2 observing that the petitioner purchased only share to the extent of 3 kanals 4 marlas out of total land measuring 5 kanals 2 marlas and did not purchase specific portion of the said land of which the decree holder now is seeking sale deed. Feeling dissatisfied, decree holder has filed this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

As noticed hereinbefore, the agreement as well as the decree in favour of petitioner is regarding 3 kanals 4 marlas land share out of 5 kanals 2 marlas land and not regarding specific portion thereof which is mentioned in application Annexure P/2. Consequently, the petitioner - decree holder has no right to get the sale deed of the said specific portion when neither agreement nor decree sought to be executed is regarding the said specific portion. The executing court in execution petition cannot travel beyond or behind the decree sought to be executed. Consequently, petitioner''s application seeking specific portion of the land instead of share as decreed has been rightly declined by the executing court.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that if sale deed in favour of petitioner is executed regarding share and not regarding specific portion, it will give rise to further litigation regarding partition of the land. However, merely on this basis no relief can be granted to the petitioner because the petitioner is entitled to get what has been decreed in his favour and what had been agreed to be sold to him by the respondent - judgment debtor. The petitioner should have seen to it while entering into impugned agreement to sell. He cannot claim in the execution petition anything beyond the said agreement or beyond the decree passed in his favour. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no infirmity much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the executing court warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is, therefore, found to be bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.