[2025:RJ-JP:16825] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 269/2024 Shri Kaluram Gehlot S/o Shri Pannalal Gehlot, Resident Of Ward No. 3, Motipura Baadiya, Near Satpuliya, Ajmer Road, Beawar, District Ajmer. ----Judgment debtor/objector Versus 1. Smt. Kanta Devi W/o Jagdish Prasad Gehlot, Resident Of Ward No. 3, Motipura, Baadiya, Near Satpuliya, Ajmer Road, Beawar, District Ajmer. 2. Shri Jagdish Prasad Gehlot S/o Pannalal Gehlot, Resident of Ward No. 3, Motipura Baadiya, Near Satpuliya, Ajmer Road, Beawar, District Ajmer. -----Decree Holder 3. Shri Dinesh Chandra Gehlot S/o Pannalal Gehlot, Resident of Ward No. 3, Motipura Baadiya, Near Satpuliya, Ajmer Road, Beawar, District Ajmer. --------Judgment debtor For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Alok Chaturvedi Mr. Bhawani Shanker For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.P. Sharma Mr. M.C. Gupta Mr. Anil K. Sharma Mr. Anil Tiwari HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 07/04/2025 1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioner-judgment debtor aggrieved from order dated 17.08.2024 in execution application No. 21/2024 (01/2023) titled as Kanta & Ors. Vs. Kalu & Ors., passed by leaned Additional District Judge No.3, Beawar, District Ajmer. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner-judgment debtor while placing reliance upon grounds of revision petition submitted that he has [2025:RJ-JP:16825] (2 of 4) [CR-269/2024] filed an objection under section 47 of CPC against execution of compromise decree dated 28.11.2019, but same was dismissed by the Executing Court without considering the objection on merits. He further submitted that the compromise decree was passed in the year 2019 and execution is filed after four years in 2023. He also submitted that the suit property was given on Theka on 04.07.2013 for a period of seven years which expired on 01.06.2020, but within duration, this Theka was further extended for another 7 years till 01.06.2027. He submitted that the judgment-debtor is in possession of the suit property as tenant and he is ready and willing to pay appropriate lease/rent to decree-holder, but he has a right to continue to occupy the property till he is dispossessed in accordance with law. He further submitted that the tenancy rights are required to be determined in a separate proceedings and in garb of decree of partition, physical possession of property, which was on Theka/lease cannot be taken by decree-holder. At last, he submitted that the trial court has committed serious error while dismissing his application for determination of his rights and stay of execution. He referred negative closure report submitted by police in police case. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent decree-holder and he submitted that on basis of compromise between the parties, a compromise decree was passed 28.11.2019 and after partition the area of each party was specifically demarcated. He further submitted that knowing fully well the petitioner judgment-debtor has manipulated the Thekanama by extension of seven years on 25.05.2020. He also submitted that initially Thekanama was printed on a stamp of [2025:RJ-JP:16825] (3 of 4) [CR-269/2024] ₹100/- on 04.07.2013 and same was noterized, but the extension of seven years was type-written on back of earlier executed Thekanama. He also referred the order passed by the trial court and submitted that the trial court has rightly dismissed the application and petitioner has no right to resist and obstruct. He also referred the FIR No. 756/2023 registered at police station, Beawar City, District Ajmer about forgery and fabrication in Thekanama. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material placed on record. 5. In a civil suit No. 36/2019 plaintiff-Kalu Ram and defendant Jagdish Prasad have entered into a settlement and on the basis of compromise between the parties, a consent decree was passed on 28.11.2019. To execute the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2019, an execution application is filed by Smt. Kanta Devi and Jagdish Prasad on the ground that the property acquired by Jagdish Prasad by way of judgment and decree was gifted by registered gift deed to Kanta Devi and Jagdish Prasad is a decree holder. During pendency of this execution proceeding number 21/2024 (01/2023), an application under Section 47 and 151 CPC is filed by present petitioner. 6. As per petitioner, Thekanama dated 04.07.2013 was extended for another 7 years on 25.05.2020, which means there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between decree holder (respondents) and judgment debtor (petitioner). A perusal of sequence of event indicate that on 25.05.2020 there was lockdown in wake of COVID-19 and due to restrictions, mainly business activities were affected. The extension is type-written on [2025:RJ-JP:16825] (4 of 4) [CR-269/2024] back page of stamp paper of agreement dated 07.07.2013. Respondent Jagdish Prasad has filed an FIR No. 756/2023 on 03.10.2023 at Police Station Beawar city, though Police has filed negative closure report (FR) to close the case. The extension date 25.05.2020 is doubtful and moreover, same is not executed in form of a separate agreement. After 01.06.2020, when some activities were permitted and lock-down was relaxed, a proper agreement was required to be executed, but no such agreement is available on record. 7. The extension of 7 years is type written and is not sufficient to draw a conclusion in favor of petitioner-Judgment debtor. On the basis of compromise between the parties, a decree was passed on 28.11.2019 and same requires execution. No party has a right to obstruct any execution particularly when he was a party to the decree. Though, the Executing Court is competent to decide all disputes arising out of execution under Section 47 of CPC but it cannot open unnecessary pandrora box of objections. Herein, this case the trial Court after considering the material on record has rightly dismissed the application and there is no perversity or legality in the order passed by the trial court. 8. Thus the revision petition, sans merit and same is liable to be dismissed. There is no independent right to continue to remain on property. 9. In view of aforesaid, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /267-S