Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116357 Court No. - 9 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7172 of 2025 Petitioner :- Umrav Singh Respondent :- Shri Bhratharpal Singh And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Srivastava,Vishal Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Rishi Chadha Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed under Section 47 CPC rejecting the objections of the petitioner and the revisional order passed in a revision filed by the petitioner against the order rejecting the objections under Section 47 CPC. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-respondent No.2, who is now being represented by his heirs. During pendency of the suit, defendant No.2 executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner and subsequently, petitioner was impleaded as party in the suit and has contested the suit claiming himself to be bonafide purchaser, however, the said suit was decreed by the Trial Court with the direction to defendant No.2 to execute the sale deed and it was further directed that petitioner will also present at the time of execution of the sale deed. The said decree was affirmed by the First Appellate Court, Second Appellate Court and also by the Apex Court and no relief was granted to the petitioner at any stage. The decree was put to execution and in the execution, petitioner filed objection under Section 47 CPC resisting the decree on the ground that there was no direction by the Trial Court to the petitioner to execute the sale deed. The said objection was rejected by the Executing Court and the revision filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no direction by the Trial Court to be directing the petitioner to execute the sale deed. 5. Per contra, Shri Rishi Chadha, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs- respondents submitted that during pendency of the suit, sale deed has been executed by defendant No.2 in favour of the present petitioner and there is no illegality in directing the petitioner to execute the sale deed as there exists the sale deed executed by the original defendant in favour of the petitioner in order to clear the doubt as to the title which may arise in future. 6. In view of these facts, no illegality has been committed by the Court below. 7. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Rishabh [Manish Kumar Nigam, J.] Digitally signed by :- RISHABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad