CR - 540/006 -Aziz Mohammad Vs.Nagar Palika, Nathdwara – Judgment dt.15.9.08 1/2 S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.540/006 Aziz Mohammad Vs.Nagar Palika, Nathdwara. Date of order : 15th September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. R.S. Mankad for the petitioner. --------- 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. By this revision petition, the impugned order dated 2.12.2006 of the learned trial Court is challenged whereby the learned trial court rejected the application of the decree holder under Order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C. 3. The petitioner had filed the said application on the ground that the appellate decree in his favour was not complied with by the respondent-Municipal Council, Nathdwara inasmuch as by the said decree the appellate Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff- appellant that on the basis of his possession over the disputed plot from a period prior to 1990, therefore, his possession may be regularized by the Municipal Council subject to realization of regularization charges in accordance with the Rules. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decree-holder had filed the application on the ground that despite notice to the judgment-debtor they had not regularized the said land and complied with the decree. However, he submits that the regularization charges from the other similarly situated persons were realized at lesser rate whereas a notice of higher charge was given to CR - 540/006 -Aziz Mohammad Vs.Nagar Palika, Nathdwara – Judgment dt.15.9.08 2/2 him. The learned court below while rejecting the said application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC has observed that the decree-holder petitioner had failed to establish that despite deposit of demanded sum of regularization charges, the judgment debtor had failed to execute the decree and comply with the same. Therefore, application under Order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C. was rejected. 5. Having heard learned counsel, this Court finds no force in this revision petition. 6. If the defendant-debtor Municipal Council demanded any particular regularization charges and if same was higher according to the plaintiff, it was different and fresh cause of action and it could not be said that the judgment debtor failed to comply with the decree. The decree reproduced at page 4 of the impugned order does not specifically state any particular amount for regularization charges, therefor, the learned court below cannot be said to be committed any error in rejecting the application under Order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C. 7. The revision petition is found to be devoid of merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.41 babulal/-