[2025:RJ-JP:2315] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3621/2018 Ghanshyam Das S/o Late Shri Chhuttan Lal Soni, R/o House No. 1248 Rasta Jhalaniyan, Chokari Topkhana Desh, Jaipur And Shopkeeper Shop No. 1305, Rasta Jhalaniyan And Corner Of Baba Harish Chandra Marg, Behind Well, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Ramdayal S/o Late Shri Chhuttan Lal By Caste Soni, R/o 1248, Rasta Jhalaniyan, Chokari Topkhana Desh, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : None Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 17/01/2025 This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant-judgment debtor (for short ‘the judgment debtor’) against the order dated 24.11.2017 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.13, Jaipur Metropolitan (for short ‘the executing court’) in Civil Execution Application No. 48/2011 titled as ‘Ramdayal Vs. Ghanshyam’ whereby the executing court decreased the decretal share in the suit shop of the judgment debtor. Learned counsel for the judgment debtor submits that the judgment debtor and respondent-plaintiff-decree holder (for short ‘the decree holder’) purchased a shop from Smt. Jinko Devi and Smt. Prem Devi through registered sale deed. He further submits [2025:RJ-JP:2315] (2 of 3) [CW-3621/2018] that the plaintiff-decree holder filed a suit against the defendant- judgment debtor for partition in which preliminary decree was passed by the trial Court vide order dated 03.01.2009. After that, final decree was passed on 27.04.2011. As per the commissioner report, 4’ 10” from North to South and 11’ 3” from East to West of the suit shop was of plaintiff-Ramdayal and 4’ 11” from North to South and 11’ 3” from East to West was of defendant. After that, execution application was filed. After measuring, it was found that from North to South, width of the said shop was only 9’ 1”. So, the executing court changed the final decree and held decree holder entitled to 4’ 6” and judgment debtor was entitled to 4’ feet 7”. Learned counsel for the judgment debtor also submits that the Executing Court wrongly decreased the judgment debtor’s share in the suit shop contrary to the final decree. The executing court has no jurisdiction to change the final decree. So, the order dated 24.11.2017 passed by the executing court be set-aside. Despite service of notice, none has put in appearance for the decree holder. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the judgment debtor and perused the impugned order. It is an admitted position that after sending the final decree for execution, Nazeer found that from North to South width of disputed shop was only 9’ 1“. So, executing court proportionately decreased the share of the judgment debtor as well as the decree holder in the suit shop. So, in my considered opinion, the executing court has not committed any error in decreasing the share of the judgment debtor in the suit shop. So, the present [2025:RJ-JP:2315] (3 of 3) [CW-3621/2018] petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/36