IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2112 (M/S) of 2010 Mangal Ram …Petitioner Versus Smt. Samarjahan …Respondent Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Tapan Singh, Advocate holding the brief of Sri I.P. Kohli, Advocate for the petitioner. A suit for specific performance was decreed. The appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed. Thereafter, the decree was put in execution and it transpires that when the judgment-debtor failed to appear, the court executed the sale deed. Subsequently, notices were issued to the defendant to deliver possession and at that stage the judgment-debtor came to know about the execution of the sale deed by the court. It seems that the petitioner filed an application for recall, but the application filed was one for seeking time to deliver possession. The court granted time and when the petitioner came to know that wrong facts were stated in the application, he filed a revision, which has been rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has been misled by the counsel, against which a complaint has been lodged before the Bar Council of Uttarakhand and that, he only needs an opportunity of hearing before the executing court, failing which, it would be a “fait accompli” in the execution proceedings and will be evicted from the premises in question. Considering the facts and circumstances that has been brought on record, the Court finds that 2 the petitioner is not entitled for any relief because at every stage he has placed impediment in the execution of the decree which he had contested and having failed in his appeal he kept quiet for a long period and now he has filed a belated second appeal before this Court. In my opinion, the impugned order does not suffer from any error of law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 20-12-2010 Salim/