THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2236 of 2009. Rajendra Singh S/O Sri Preetam Singh, R/O Village Kalyanpur, Tehsil Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. Ramyashpal Singh, S/O Sri Jaswant Singh, 2. Surendra Singh, S/O Sri Jaswant Singh, Both R/O Village Kalyanpur, Tehsil Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. …Respondents. Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Date February 17, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 11563 of 2009) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15- 9-2009 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar (Annexure-5 to the petition) and the order dated 16-11-2009 passed by District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar (Annexure- 6 to the petition). By the order dated 15-9-2009, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kashipur had rejected the objection under Section 47 of the C.P.C., filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor in Civil Execution Case No. 8 of 2006, as not legally maintainable. By the order dated 16-11-2009 the revision filed by the petitioner against the said order has been rejected by the District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. A perusal of the record shows that in Civil Suit No. 27 of 1998, Ramyashpal Singh and another Vs. Rajendra Singh, the Civil Judge Senior Division, Nainital decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for decree for specific relief vide judgment and decree dated 6.7.2000 and 2 directed the defendant-petitioner to get a sum of Rs. Rs. 45,000/- from the plaintiffs within one month and to get the sale-deed executed in their favour and deliver possession to them as mentioned in the order. Aggrieved, the defendant-petitioner filed an appeal which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2000 before the District Judge Nainital, but the appellate court did not find favour with the petitioner and dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 18-6-2001. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred second Appeal No. 1334 of 2001, Rajendra Singh Vs. Ramyashpal Singh and another, which is pending. It appears that the plaintiff-respondents moved an execution application before the executing court. Thereupon, sale- deed had already been executed by the petitioner pursuant to the decree passed by the trial court but no possession was given to the plaintiffs by the petitioner-judgment debtor. The plaintiff-respondents then filed another execution application no. 8 of 2006 for getting the possession of the land under the sale-deed in question as per decree passed in the original suit. The learned executing court has committed no illegality in rejecting the objection under Section 47 of the C.P.C. filed by the petitioner and the learned revisional court has rightly dismissed the revision preferred by the judgment-debtor-petitioner against the same. I do not find any perversity in the orders impugned. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed outright. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 3