[2025:RJ-JP:47746] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18319/2025 1. Sh. Keshri Nandan Jain, Advocate, 14, Ganga Path, Suraj Nagar West, Civil Line, Jaipur (Deceased) 2. Sh. Alok Jain S/o Sh. Keshri Nandan Jain, 14, Ganga Path, Civil Line, Jaipur. 3. Sh. Deepak Jain S/o Sh. Keshri Nandan Jain, 14, Ganga Path, Civil Line, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus S.m.s. Investment Corporation Private Limited, Jaipur Through Attorney Jagjeevan Kumar Pareek S/o Sh. Madan Lal Pareek, R/o Staff Quarters, Rajmahal Palace, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akhil Simlote, Adv. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Order 25/11/2025 It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that while deciding the application for appointment of a Commissioner dated 08.04.2024 in Execution Petition No. 1/2022, the learned Court below not only rejected the application for appointment of Commissioner but without considering the objection applications pending of the petitioner, proceeded to issue warrants of possession and grant police aid in favour of the respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner’s objection applications filed under Order 21 Rules 22, 23, 97 and 101 read with Section 151 CPC are still pending and have not yet been adjudicated. [2025:RJ-JP:47746] (2 of 2) [CW-18319/2025] A perusal of the record, which has been made available by the petitioner, indicates that two separate objection applications, which are annexed as Annexure–2, remain undecided. However, the subsequent application for appointment of a Commissioner has been decided and while deciding that application, the Court has issued warrants for possession as well as orders for police assistance. Considering the fact that the objections filed by the petitioner are still pending before the Executing Court, and that without deciding such objections the trial Court ought not to have passed orders for possession or for police aid merely on an application for appointment of Commissioner, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the trial Court to decide the petitioner’s pending objection applications within a period of 30 days. Until the disposal of the objections within the said period, the warrants of possession shall not be executed by the trial Court. If the respondent is aggrieved by this order, they can file an application to recall this order. With the above observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Pending Application, if any, stands disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-171