1 S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.79/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.79/2008. Kishan Gopal. VERSUS Dhanna Lal and Others. 22.04.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.Anil Mehta, for the petitioner. Mr.Shailesh Prakash Sharma, for the respondents. ***** During the course of hearing it was pointed out that with a view to resolve the dispute as to whether in terms of the decree dated 20.07.1984, the parties have acted upon and whether the construction has been carried out in accordance with the same by the petitioner or not, a commissioner may be sent and he may submit his report in that behalf. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that for this purpose, the learned court below had on 28.07.1998 ordered for the appointment of commissioner to verify the aforesaid fact and submit the report to the court. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that 2 S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.79/2008 a commissioner in terms of the order dated 28.07.1998 could not carried out the aforesaid directions contained in the said order because of the subsequent revision petitions being filed against the orders of the court below before this court and, therefore, the compliance of the order dated 28.07.1998 could not be made. Learned counsel for the parties submit that they would have no objection if a commissioner is now appointed including the one appointed under order dated 28.07.1998, if he is willing to perform the job of commissioner, as directed by the court below and in case the parties want to appoint a fresh commissioner, they are directed to appear before the learned court below and submit a fresh panel of the advocates for being appointed as commissioner and the learned trial court is directed to appoint a commissioner to carry out the directions contained in the order dated 28.07.1998. Needless to say, that in case the commissioner submits a report to the effect that the compliance of the decree has not been made, the learned court below 3 S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.79/2008 would afford a reasonable time to the judgment debtor to carry out the compliance of the compromise decree dated 20.07.1984 failing which the consequences of non-compliance of the order would follow in accordance with law. In view of the above agreed order, the impugned order stands set aside and the revision petition stands disposed of, as above. The application dated 23.01.2009 also stands disposed of and the interim order stands vacated. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.