[2025:RJ-JP:14806] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16233/2023 Dinesh Kumar Sharma Son Of Late Girraj Prasad Sharma, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Upadhyay Krishi Farm, Masalpur Road, Near Pool, Karauli Tehsil And District Karauli ----Petitioner Versus 1. Omprakash Adopted Son Nandkishor, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of Chodhary Ke Baghichi, Karauli Tehsil And District Karauli (Raj.) 2. Deepak Kumar Sharma Son Of Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Upadhyay Krishi Farm, Masalpur Road, Near Pool, Karauli Tehsil And District Karauli (Raj.) 3. Deepak Upadhyay Son Of Late Vishambhar Dayal Sharma, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Upadhyay Krishi Farm, Masalpur Road, Near Pool, Karauli Tehsil And District Karauli (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Krishana Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 02/04/2025 This Civil Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.08.2023 passed by the Executing Court in Execution No.1/2023, whereby the objection filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Nos.2 and 3-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit for partition, cancellation of decree and permanent injunction [2025:RJ-JP:14806] (2 of 3) [CW-16233/2023] before the trial court, which on the basis of compromise was decreed vide order dated 14.12.2019. The respondent No.1 filed an application under Order 21 Rule 11 CPC for executing the compromise decree dated 14.12.2019. The petitioner filed objections under Order 21 Rule 58 read with Order 21 Rule 97, 98 and 101 CPC, which have been dismissed by the executing court vide its order dated 21.08.2023. He further submits that the land in question was an agricultural land, which having not been converted, the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and to pass the decree in the matter. So, decree was in-executable but the executing court vide order dated 21.08.2023 wrongly dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner. So, order dated 21.08.2023 passed by the executing court be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that executing court rightly dismissed the objection filed by the petitioner because compromise was arrived at between the parties before Lok Adalat and compromise decree was passed on 14.12.2019. The said order was not challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 also submits that the plaintiffs had challenged the order passed by Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karauli on the temporary injunction application before District Judge, Karauli in which also compromise was arrived at between the parties and petitioner had also signed on compromise. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 also submits that while dismissing the objections raised by the petitioner, executing court rightly observed that objections [2025:RJ-JP:14806] (3 of 3) [CW-16233/2023] regarding jurisdiction was not raised before the trial court. So, the said objections could not be raised at this stage. So, present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.1. It is an admitted position that compromise decree was passed before Lok Adalat. Petitioner had not challenged the order of Lok Adalat before filing the objections. Compromise arrived at between the parties also bore the signatures of the petitioner. Petitioner had not raised the objection regarding jurisdiction before the trial court. So, in my considered opinion, executing court had not committed any error in dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner. So, present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /79