1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.50/2004 {Nopa Ram Versus Smt. Manju Lora & Another} Date of Order :: 18th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Vipul Jain for the petitioner BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The plaintiff-respondent no.1 Smt. Manju Lora filed a suit for permanent injunction and possession in respect of disputed property against defendant-respondent no.2 Pratap Singh, which was decreed by the trial court vide judgment dated 30th July, 1997. The decree holder-respondent no.1 filed an application for execution, wherein present petitioner filed objection petition under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC that he is the owner and in possession of the disputed property. The executing court made an enquiry and considered the objection of the petitioner in detail and recorded a finding that case of the petitioner is that the land in dispute was purchased by his brother Laxman Ram through agreement from 2 judgment debtor Pratap Singh, but neither agreement has been produced and exhibited nor his brother Laxman Ram has been examined in this case. So far as the other documentary evidences are concerned, the same are not relating to the disputed property. The executing court, therefore, dismissed the objection petition vide order dated 14th May, 2001. The said finding was affirmed by the first appellate court vide judgment dated 3rd December, 2003. Being aggrieved with the same, the present revision petition has been preferred. 3. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the impugned orders passed by both the courts below alongwith other documents annexed with the revision petition and after considering the same, I find that disputed question involved in the present case relates to the question of fact and there is concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below which should not and cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction unless the same is malafide or perverse. I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the said finding so as to interfere with the same. There 3 is no merit in this revision petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Petition No. 610/2004 In S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.50/2004 {Nopa Ram Versus Smt. Manju Lora & Another} Date of Order :: 18th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Vipul Jain for the petitioner BY THE COURT: Consequent upon the dismissal of the revision petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and the same also stands disposed of. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK