IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL REVISION No. 81 of 2005 SHRI RAJARAM CHELA SHRI HEMARAM V/S LRS OF SMT. VIMLA DEVI Mr. MISRI LAL CHHANGANI, for the appellant / petitioner Date of Order : 15.3.2005 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned order. By the impugned order, the learned Executing Court has dismissed the petitioner's application raising objections against executability of the decree. The foremost argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the application was filed under Section 47 CPC, and the objections required evidence, which could not be disposed of summarily. Learned counsel was asked to point out, as to what are the precise objections, which required evidence, and could not be disposed of summarily, whereupon the submission made was, that the decree is vague, inasmuch as, no description of the property with respect to which decree was passed, has been given, apart from the fact, that out of the property in question, one plot has already been sold to some other person. Suffice it to say, that the decree very specifically specifies the property in respect of which the document of title is to be executed by the petitioner in favour of the plaintiffs, as the plots detailed in para-4A, 4B, 4C and 4D of the plaint. Learned counsel was asked to read out the description of these properties from the plaint, and learned counsel declined to read by submitting that he does not have the copy of the plaint. The next objection raised was that the details of the relief claimed have not been given in the execution application as well. In this regard, it would suffice to say that the copy of the decree-sheet was produced with the execution application, and the direction was sought for executing the decree as it is, in accordance with the provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 and 35 CPC. So far as one of the plots having been sold is concerned, it is not given out, as to when it was sold. However, if it was sold prior to filing of the suit, then the matter could not be gone into in these execution proceedings, and if it is sold during pendency of the suit, then also, such transaction is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and cannot entitle the petitioner to resist the execution of the decree passed against him. The next objection raised was that the property does not belong to the petitioner alone, and he is not competent to sell the property. This objection also cannot be sustained for the reason that the decree is against the petitioner, and he is bound to execute the document. The next submission made is that as a matter of fact, the suit was not properly contested, and unfortunately appeal could not be filed against the decree. In my view, this hardly constitutes any ground for the petitioner to oppose the decree. No other argument was raised. The appeal thus has no force, and is dismissed summarily. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/