IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER 27.2.2008. S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1653/1998 Nagesh Sapaliga Vs. Abdul Saleem & Ors. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri M.M. Ranjan, for the petitioner. Shri Manoj Bhardwaj, for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This revision petition has been filed by the Judgment Debtor whose objection application under Section 151 CPC in execution petition No.3/1999 was dismissed by the learned executing court vide order dated 29.08.1998. The objection has been raised that the property as described in the plaint and the one of which the possession has been given are not identical and that even the boundary of the same does not tally with the description in the plaint. I have perused the impugned order in which the learned executing court has not only referred to the plaint averments but also taken into consideration the actual position as it exists on the ground which is described the report of the Nazir regarding which reference has been made in the judgment dated 29.08.1998. The properties in dispute consists of four show rooms on the ground floor with construction on the first floor and the roof above. The Nazir has reportedly stated that the situation was altered inasmuch as so far as the show rooms are concerned they had been closed and air conditioners have been fixed in the openings of two show rooms and on the opening of the 3rd showroom there is an exhaust fan and on the 4th showroom shutters have been put. In that view of the matter so far as the observation made by the Nazir, that from the road only one show room was visible was construed on the part of the objector that the property was not the same as described in the plaint and for which decree was passed. The other objection was, that the boundaries did not tally of the property as given out of the plaint with those in the warrant for possession. So far as the above objection is concerned the property was described in para 2 of the plaint as follows : "ǔः थत कः बा आमेर, जयपुर - देहली नेशनल हाई वे अकबरȣ मǔः जद के सामने 4 शो Ǿम उ× तर मुखी व उनके ऊपर के चारो कमरे मय छत/इस सà पǔ× त कȧ सीमायɅ इस ूकार है Ǒक पूव[ मɅ पर कोटे कȧ दȣवार, पǔँ चम मɅ मकान ौी फखǾदȣन नगीनेवाला, उ× तर मɅ अकबरȣ मǔः जद बीच सडक नेशनल हाईवे जयपु र देहली रोड तथा दǔ¢ण मɅ वादȣगण के अÛ य मकानात है ।" As per proceeding recorded by the Nazir on 3.11.1996 which find mention at page 9 of the certified copy of the order dated 28.09.1998 the property of which the possession was sought is identical with those mentioned in para 2 of the plaint. It has been recorded as follows at page as follows:- "पूव[ मɅ पर कोटे कȧ दȣवार, पǔँ चम मɅ मकान फखǽदȣन नगीनेवाले का दǔ¢ण मɅ वादȣगण के अÛ य मकानात है तथा उ× तर Ǒदशा मɅ सडक पुराना जयपुर Ǒदã ली नेशनल हाईवे है तथा उ× तर Ǒदशा मɅ हȣ ǒववादमः त ः थल पर उ× तर पǔँ चम Ǒदशा मɅ अकबरȣ मः जीद बनी हई है Ǒडबȧदार अÞ दल सलीम ने इस सà पित को ु ु शनाÉ त Ǒकया है।" A look at the above description in the plaint and the report of the Nazir would go to show that the property of which possession was given is not at all different from one which was described in para 2 of the plaint. The objection has no merit. In view of the above, there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the learned executing court. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS