Holding

Order XXI Rule 34 is a mandatory procedural requirement; the execution court must serve the draft sale deed to the judgment debtor, invite objections, and may only execute after considering such objections.

Summary

The appellant, Rajbir, entered into a sale agreement which later resulted in a suit for specific performance. The trial court decreed that the respondents, Suraj Bhan and others, must execute a sale deed in favour of the appellant and deposit the balance consideration. The respondents filed an execution petition and submitted a draft sale deed, but the execution court approved the deed without serving the draft to the appellant or inviting objections, contrary to Order XXI Rule 34 of the CPC. The appellant challenged this procedural lapse; the High Court dismissed his revision. The Supreme Court held that the execution court must serve the draft sale deed to the judgment debtor and provide a notice for objections before execution, and that the court cannot bypass this mandatory procedure. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order, directed the execution court to hand over the draft, allow the appellant three weeks to file objections, and thereafter decide the matter, while staying the already executed sale deed.

Issues considered

Whether Order XXI Rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 mandates that the execution court must serve the draft document to the judgment debtor and invite objections before executing the decree.
Whether the execution court’s failure to invite objections and execute the sale deed without complying with Order XXI Rule 34 warrants setting aside of its order.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order XXI Rule 34

Subjects

Order XXI Rule 34execution of decreespecific performancesale deeddraft deed objectionsCivil Procedureproperty law

Judgment

932 [2022]
SUPREME COURT 16 S.C.R. 932
REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R.

A RAJBIR
v.
SURAJ BHAN & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 1700 of 2022)
B FEBRUARY 28, 2022
[K.M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Or. XXI r. 34 – Decree for execution of a sale document –
C Decree holder-respondents filed for execution petition of decree of
specific performance of a sale deed – Court issued direction to
execute the sale deed in favor of decree holder – Objections to the
execution of sale deed of judgment debtor rejected – Draft sale
deed submitted by the decree-holder was approved by the execution
court – Revision petition filed by appellant/judgment debtor –
D
Dismissed by the High Court – In appeal before this Court case of
the appellant/judgment debtor that objection of appellant/judgment
debtor to the draft sale deed were not taken as required u/Order
XXI Rule 34 – On appeal, held: It is not required that the decree
holder must directly deliver the draft sale deed to the judgment debtor
E – Procedure, is that the decree holder must make it available to the
Court – Under Order XXI Rule 34, it becomes the duty of the court
to thereupon cause the draft to be served upon the judgment debtor
– There must be a notice inviting objections and the court may fix a
time within which objections are to be filed – Judgment debtor may
or may not object – Execution court to hand over the copy of the
F
draft sale deed produced by the respondents within the stipulated
period – Appellant would be free to file his objections to the draft
sale deed and thereafter, after hearing the parties, a decision would
be taken on the objections.
Or. XXI r. 34 – Decree for execution of a document – Held:
G Order XXI Rule 34 sub-rule (3) contemplates a situation where the
judgment debtor objects – This is to be contained in writing within
the time provided – The court is duty bound to make an order
approving or altering the draft as it thinks fit – It is also important

H
932
RAJBIR v. SURAJ BHAN & ANR. 933

from the point of view of the role of the executing court which is to A
act in conformity with the decree – Though, it is indeed open to the
executing court to construe the decree; it cannot go beyond the
decree – Order XXI r. 34 cannot be diluted and any such departure
from the provisions can have highly deleterious consequences not
merely qua the parties but also persons who come to deal with those
B
parties in future.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The present document is a sale, therefore,
Order XXI Rule 34 CPC is attracted. It contemplates that if the
judgment debtor neglects or refuses to obey the decree, the C
decree-holder is to prepare a draft of the document. In this case,
the draft of the document is the draft sale deed. The draft of the
sale deed must further be in accordance with the terms of the
decree. It is to be delivered to the court. Thereupon, it is not
required that the decree holder must directly deliver it to the
judgment debtor. The procedure, therefore, is that the decree D
holder must make it available to the Court. Under Order XXI
Rule 34, it becomes the duty of the court to thereupon cause the
draft to be served upon the judgment debtor. There must be a
notice inviting objections and the court may fix a time within which
objections are to be filed. The judgment debtor may or may not E
object. [Para 10]9942-B-D]
1.2 It is well settled that the execution court cannot go
beyond the decree. The decree must be executed as it is. Though,
it is indeed open to the executing court to construe the decree;
it cannot go beyond the decree. Therefore, when objections are F
filed pointing out in a given case that the proposed draft of the
sale deed is not in conformity with the decree, it becomes the
duty of the executing court to apply its mind and to make
alterations in the draft, if needed, to make it in conformity with
the decree. It will be thereafter that the decree holder is to deliver
it to the court with the alterations if any made by the court, on G
proper stamp paper, if required and the execution of the document
is effected by the court or the officer appointed. [Para 11]
[942-F-G]

H
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R.

A 1.3 This is a case where the court did not invite objections
of the appellant to the draft sale deed but the application of the
respondents for appointment of the commissioner to execute the
sale deed is allowed, no doubt, taking note of the order of the
same date, rejecting the objections of the appellant to the
execution of the decree. Objections on behalf of the appellant to
B
the execution petition are not to be confused with his objections
to the proposed sale deed. [Paras 12, 13][943-D-E]
1.4 Order XXI Rule 34 cannot be diluted and any such
departure from the provisions can have highly deleterious
consequences not merely qua the parties in question but also
C persons who come to deal with those parties in future. It can lead
to further litigation. It is all of this which is sought to be avoided
by bringing clarity and precision and execution must be in
conformity with the adjudication contained in the decree. [Para
14][944-A-B]
D 1.5 The execution court Civil Judge (Senior Division) is
directed to hand over the copy of the draft sale deed produced by
the respondents for obtaining objections as required under Order
XXI Rule 34, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appellant will
be free to file his objections to the draft sale deed within a period
E of three weeks thereafter. Thereafter, after hearing the parties,
a decision will be taken on the objections. Appropriate order will
be passed by the court so that the decree is executed as is
provided in the decree. Needless to say, in case the sale deed
which has been executed on the strength of the draft sale deed is
found to be violative of the decree, it will necessarily be set aside,
F and thereafter, a fresh sale deed must be executed by the
execution court. [Para 16][944-E-F; 945-A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1700
of 2022.

G From the Judgment and Order dated 04.07.2019 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CR No. 4027 of 2019.
Tarun Gupta, Adv. for the Appellant.
Ms. Neelam Singh, Sameer Singh, Sandiv Kalia, V. Gopal Achary,
Nand Ram, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Advs. for the Respondents.
H
RAJBIR v. SURAJ BHAN & ANR. 935

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
Leave granted.
1. While procedure is said to be the handmaiden of justice and
substantial justice must prevail and the former may take the backseat, B
failure to follow the procedure laid down by law can result in grave
miscarriage of justice to the judgment debtor and delay in the decree
holder realising the fruits of the decree, all of which will be evident from
facts of this case as we narrate them.
2. The appellant along with his brother agreed to sell certain C
property which we shall refer to, to the respondents-Suraj Bhan and
Balraj on 28.01.2006. Thereupon, the respondents instituted a suit for
specific performance. It was inter alia the case of the respondents that
the brother of the appellant (Raj Kumar) had already conveyed his part
of the property in conformity with the agreement. The appellant, it would
appear, had sold the property to a person who was arrayed as second D
defendant in the suit. The suit finally came to be decreed. In other
words, a decree for specific performance was passed. The terms of
the decree may be noticed as follows:
“35. In view of the findings recorded under above mentioned
issues, suit of plaintiffs succeed and is hereby decreed with E
cost. A decree of declaration to the effect that agreement
to sell Ex.D1 and sale deed Ex.D3 are illegal, null and void
paper transaction and not finding on the rights of plaintiffs
qua the suit land. A decree of possession by way of specific
performance in the respective share of plaintiffs is hereby F
passed in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.
The defendant no. 1 shall get the sale deed executed and
registered in favour of plaintiffs in view of terms and
plaintiffs, however, shall deposit the remaining part of sale
consideration and within one month from the date of this
judgment. In case of failure to get execute and register the G
sale deed by defendant no. 1, the plaintiffs will be at liberty
to take the assistance of court in this regard.”
Decree in terms thereto is as follows:

H
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R.

A “Suit property: Land comprising in Khewat no. 346 Rect
No. & Killa numbers 45 18.10.20/1.2364/3 4,62.78 14 &
numbran 882.824 measuring 72 kanal 7 Marlas to the extent
of 1/3 shares which comms out 24 kanal 2 Marlas situated
in the revenue estate of village salahawas Tehsil & District
Jhajjar.
B
This suit coming on this 4 day of January 2013
for for final disposal before me(Fkhruddin, Civil Judge (Sr.
Divn. Jhajar) in the presence of Shri M.S Ahlawat counsel
for the plaintiff Sh. Mahesh Kumar counsel for defendant
no. 1. Sh. R.P. Suhag counsel for defendant no.2.
C
Suit presented on: 16.1.2007
It is ordered that suit of plaintiff succeed and is hereby
decreed with costs. A decree of declaration to the effect
that agreement to sell Ex D1 and sale deed Ex.D3 are illegal,
D null and void, paper transaction and no binding on the rights
of plaintiffs qua the suit land. A decree of possession by
way of specific performance in the respective share of
plaintiffs is hereby passed in favour of plaintiffs and against
the defendants. The defendants no. 1 shall get the sale
deed executed and registered in favour of plaintiffs in view
E of terms and conditions of agreement to sell Ex P2. The
plaintiffs however, shall deposit the remaining part of sale
consideration and within one month from the date of this
judgment. In case of failure to get execute and register the
sale deed by defendant no. 1, the plaintiffs will be at liberty
F to take the assistance of court in this regard.”
3. The appellant was unsuccessful in challenging the aforesaid
decree both in first appeal and, what is more, in the second appeal before
the High Court. An attempt made before this Court culminated in the
rejection of the special leave petition filed by the appellant. The
G respondents applied for execution. The appellant filed his objections.
They are as follows:
“The judgment debtor No. 1/ Objecting party preferred an
appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana
against the judgment and decree under execution vide RSA
H
RAJBIR v. SURAJ BHAN & ANR. 937
[K. M. JOSEPH, J.]

No. 2187/2013 which was dismissed by the Hon’ble High A
Court of Punjab & Haryana vide judgment and order dated
16.05.2018. Upon which the judgment debtor No. 1 moved
a petition for special leave to appeal before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India bearing No. 23053/2018 but the
same was dismissed vide order dated 31.08.2018 and the
B
judgment debtor No. 1 has no intention to file a review against
the same.
The Judgment debtor No. 1 submits the following
objections against the execution of the judgment and decree
dated 04.01.2013:
C
1. That the decree dated 04.01.2013 cannot be executed
because of the own act and conduct of the decree holders.
In the decree dated 04.01.2013 the Hon’ble Civil Judge (Sr.
Div.), Sh. Fakhruddin has clearly mentioned that the decree
holders need to deposit the remaining sale consideration
within one month from the dated of passing of the judgment D
and decree dated 04.01.2013. Relevant portion of the decree
dated 04.01.2013 is reproduced below:
“The defendant No. 1 shall get the sale deed executed
and registered in favour of the plaintiffs in view of
the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell Ex- E
P2. The plaintiff however, shall deposit the remaining
part of sale consideration within one month from the
date of this judgment.”
As per the terms and conditions of the agreement to
sell Ex-P2 the total sale consideration for land measuring F
42 Kanal and 11 Marla @ of Rs.12,25,000/- per acre
amounts to Rs.65,15,469/- out of which Rs.2,50,000/- were
paid as earnest money as such the remaining sale
consideration amounts to Rs.62,65,469/- whereas the decree
holders/plaintiffs allegedly have only deposited an amount G
of Rs.34,41,100/- which is deficient and there is no provision
in the decree for later submission of the balance sale
consideration or part payments of the same.

H
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R.

A Prayer: It is therefore most respectfully prayed that in the
present circumstances the application of the Decree Holders
may kindly be dismissed with cost.
Any other order which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the present may
B also be passed in favour of the objecting respondent.”
4. The objections of the appellant were rejected and dismissed
with exemplary cost of Rs.3,000/-, by order dated 30.05.2019. The
respondents had produced a draft sale deed. Based on the same, we
notice that a further order dated 30.05.2019 came to be passed. The
C aforesaid order dated 30.05.2019 came to be challenged before the High
Court. By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the revision
petition filed by the appellant. We may notice the following part of the
impugned judgment:
“....................................................................................................
D ......................................................................................................
It is evident from the decree that the suit property as
mentioned was 24 Kanals 2 Marlas. Similar observations
was also made in the RSA No. 2187 of 2013. The SLP
preferred by petitioner/JD No. 1 was also dismissed. There
E is nothing to show that the decree was qua 42 Kanals 11
Marlas and not 24 Kanals 2 Marlas.
Learned counsel for the petitioner yet again insisted that
the draft sale deed was not served upon him, which is a
mandatory requirement. However, no such argument was
F raised by the JD/objector qua the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
an application was filed by the decree holder for appointment
of Local Commissioner for execution of the sale deed in
compliance of the impugned judgment and decree dated
G 04.01.2013 and it was allowed on the same day, whereas, it
is mandatory to supply the copy of draft sale deed in
compliance of Order 21 Rule 34(2) of the Civil Procedure
Code, 1908.

H
RAJBIR v. SURAJ BHAN & ANR. 939
[K. M. JOSEPH, J.]

However, a perusal of the order dated 30.05.2019 A
(Annexure P-4) passed by the Executing Court shows that
a direction was issued to execute the sale deed in favour of
the decree holder after getting the draft sale deed approved
from the Court. Thus, the stage to hand over the draft sale
deed had not arrived and the petitioner could have very
B
well moved an application before the Court concerned to
supply him the draft sale deed, which was never done.”
5. We have heard Mr. Tarun Gupta, learned counsel for the
appellant, and Ms. Neelam Singh, learned counsel for the respondents-
decree holders.
C
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would point out that this case
involves a clear contravention of Order XXI Rule 34 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). He would point out that the Court was
duty bound upon the draft sale deed being produced before it by the
decree holder, to make it over to the judgment debtor and to consider the
objections of the judgment debtor, and thereafter follow the procedure D
therein, and only thereupon, a sale deed as such could be executed. It is
a salutary provision in law and it had been observed in its breach and it
would cause miscarriage of justice. He points out that the respondents
have not complied with the decree. It appears to be the case of the
appellant inter alia that what is involved under the agreement to sale E
was about 66 Kanals. He would further point out that what transpired in
the court as a result of the court ignoring the mandatory provisions of
Order XXI Rule 34 may be noticed. He points out that on the basis of
the draft sale deed which was produced, without giving an opportunity
to the appellant to file his objections, a commissioner was appointed who
immediately proceeded to execute the sale deed itself. He further F
emphasised that what actually happened was that the sale deed has
been executed, which is again in departure from the terms of the decree.
The sale deed takes in a different survey number. In this regard, he
points out that the decree is relatable to Khewat 346. The agreement
also relates to Khewat 346. Thus, the property which was agreed to be G
sold and which is the subject matter of adjudication and decree, was
Khewat 346, whereas the sale deed, he points out is relatable to Khewat
448. In this regard, he would submit that the decree schedule property
is part of a larger extent of the property and that the sale deed relates to
property abutting the road. The result of the court not giving an
H
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R.

A opportunity to the judgment debtor as is required under Order XXI Rule
34 is that the execution court has countenanced the situation which is
inconsistent with the terms of the decree.
7. Per contra, Ms. Neelam Singh, learned counsel for the
respondents, would point out that what has been agreed to be sold and
B what is further the subject matter of the decree was only 24 Kanals and
2 Marlas; it was part of 48 Kanals and 4 Marlas. The appellant and his
brother were the persons who had right over the same. The appellant’s
brother has already conveyed title and he has no right over the same.
The appellant, by being called upon to execute the sale deed in respect
of 24 Kanals and 2 Marlas, would not be prejudiced in any manner. She
C would point out that the respondents had produced the draft sale deed
and it may have been the duty of the court to act in terms of Order XXI
Rule 34. She further drew our attention to the proceeding at page 89 of
the SLP paperbook (Annexure R1) to point out that the case was pending
consideration before the court and it would have proceeded with the
D matter but for the stay granted by this Court.
FINDINGS
8. As far as the case relating to the exact extent which was the
subject matter of adjudication is concerned, we do not think that it will
be open to the appellant to revisit the matter by pointing out that the
E respondents had not complied with the decree in not depositing the
consideration as provided therein. An attempt to fix the extent which
the appellant is duty bound to convey by the decree in excess of 24
Kanals and 2 Marlas cannot be countenanced. We would, therefore,
hold that the property which is the subject matter of the decree is 24
F Kanals and 2 Marlas. The said property would be comprised in Khewat
No. 346 and it is a part of larger extent of 48 canals and 4 Marlas which,
in turn, undoubtedly, is part of larger extent of 72 Kanals and 7 Marlas
as referred to in the agreement. This is on the basis of the terms of the
decree. It is, thereafter, that the respondents-decree holders filed
execution proceedings.
G
9. Order XXI Rule 34 reads as follows:
“34. Decree for execution of document, or endorsement of
negotiable instrument.-(1) Where a decree is for the
execution of a document or for the endorsement for a
negotiable instrument and the judgment-debtor neglects or
H
RAJBIR v. SURAJ BHAN & ANR. 941
[K. M. JOSEPH, J.]

refuses to obey the decree, the decree-holder may prepare A
a draft of the document or endorsement in accordance with
the terms of the decree and deliver the same to the Court.
(2) The Court shall thereupon cause the draft to be served
on the judgment-debtor together with a notice requiring his
objections (if any) to be made within such time as the Court B
fixes in this behalf.
(3) Where the judgment-debtor object tot he draft, his
objections shall be stated in writing within such time, and
the court shall make such order approving or altering the
draft, as it thinks fit. C
(4) The decree-holder shall deliver to the Court a copy of
the draft with such alterations (if any) as the Court may
have directed upon the proper stamp-paper if a stamp is
required by the law for the time being in force; and the
Judge or such officer as may be appointed in this behalf D
shall execute the document so delivered.
(5) The execution of a document or the endorsement of a
negotiable instrument under this rule may be in the following
form, namely-
“C.D., Judge of the Court of E
(or as the case may be), for A.B. in suit by E.F.
against A.B.”
and shall have the same effect as the execution of
the document or the endorsement of the negotiable
F
instrument by the party ordered to execute or endorse
the same.
(6) (a) Where the registration of the document is required
under any law for the time being in force, the Court, or
such officer of the court as may be authorised in this behalf
by the Court, shall cause the document to be registered in G
accordance with such law.
(b) Where the registration of the document is not so required,
but the decree-holder desires it to be registered, the Court
may make such order as it thinks fit.
H
942 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R.

A (c) Where the Court makes any order for the registration
of any document, it may make such order as it thinks fit as
to the expenses of registration.”
10. The present is indeed a case where the decree in question
provides for the execution of the document. The document is the
B document of sale as contemplated under the decree. Therefore, Order
XXI Rule 34 is clearly attracted. It contemplates that if the judgment
debtor neglects or refuses to obey the decree, the decree-holder is to
prepare a draft of the document. In this case, the draft of the document
is the draft sale deed. The draft of the sale deed must further be in
accordance with the terms of the decree. It is to be delivered to the
C court. Thereupon, it is not required that the decree holder must directly
deliver it to the judgment debtor. The procedure, therefore, is that the
decree holder must make it available to the Court. Under Order XXI
Rule 34, it becomes the duty of the court to thereupon cause the draft to
be served upon the judgment debtor. There must be a notice inviting
D objections and the court may fix a time within which objections are to be
filed. The judgment debtor may or may not object. Order XXI Rule 34
sub-rule (3) contemplates a situation where the judgment debtor objects.
This is to be contained in writing within the time provided. The court is
duty bound to make an order approving or altering the draft as it thinks
fit. This is of considerable importance having regard to what may follow
E subsequently on the strength of the decree. It is also important from the
point of view of the role of the executing court which is to act in conformity
with the decree.
11. It is well settled that the execution court cannot go beyond the
decree. The decree must be executed as it is. Though, it is indeed open
F to the executing court to construe the decree; it cannot go beyond the
decree. Therefore, when objections are filed pointing out in a given
case that the proposed draft of the sale deed is not in conformity with
the decree, it becomes the duty of the executing court to apply its mind
and to make alterations in the draft, if needed, to make it in conformity
G with the decree. It will be thereafter that the decree holder is to deliver
it to the court with the alterations if any made by the court, on proper
stamp paper, if required and the execution of the document is effected
by the court or the officer appointed. There are other formalities
contemplated in regard to registration, all of which take place only after

H
RAJBIR v. SURAJ BHAN & ANR. 943
[K. M. JOSEPH, J.]

the procedure which is contemplated in Order XXI Rule 34 sub-rule (1) A
to (4) is followed.
12. In the facts of this case, we may notice the order which is
impugned by the appellant before the High Court. We notice from the
order that the proposed sale deed is seen taken on file. Thereafter the
court refers to the application filed for appointment of a local B
commissioner for the execution of the sale deed. The court refers to the
decree bearing the date 04.01.2013. Thereafter, the court says that in
the light of the present facts and circumstances the present application
was allowed. The Civil Nazar of the Court was appointed as local
commissioner who was directed to carry out the formalities for execution
of the sale deed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the C
agreement after getting the approved draft sale deed from the court and
report to this effect was to be submitted in the court well before
06.07.2019. This order is dated 30.05.2019. The sale deed came to be
executed on 11.06.2019. Thus, this is a case where the court did not
invite objections of the appellant to the draft sale deed but the application D
of the respondents for appointment of the commissioner to execute the
sale deed is allowed, no doubt, taking note of the order of the same date,
rejecting the objections of the appellant to the execution of the decree.
13. We must notice here that the objections on behalf of the appellant
to the execution petition are not be confused with his objections to the E
proposed sale deed. That the appellant may have raised contentions to
the effect that the decree itself is inexecutable and it was found meritless,
would not absolve the court of its duty to proceed with the matter of
considering the draft sale deed and the objections thereto under the
provisions of Order XXI Rule 34. Subsequent to the impugned order
dated 30.05.2019, without objections being invited and considered, the F
sale deed dated 11.06.2019 came to be executed which was registered.
Therefore, we are of the view that this approach of the court in the
matter of executing the decree in question clearly contravenes the salutary
provisions of Order XXI Rule 34.
14. The complain of the appellant is sought to be buttressed with G
reference to the difference in the survey numbers as noticed by us earlier.
While it is true that the court must be diligent in the matter of executing
a decree passed after adjudication which spans a long period of time, it
is also the duty of the court to execute the decree as it is and in
H
944 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R.

A accordance with law. Order XXI Rule 34 cannot be diluted and any
such departure from the provisions can have highly deleterious
consequences not merely qua the parties in question but also persons
who come to deal with those parties in future. It can lead to further
litigation. It is all of this which is sought to be avoided by bringing clarity
and precision and execution must be in conformity with the adjudication
B
contained in the decree.
15. In this case, the court is presented with a fait accompli. This
is for the reason that putting the cart before the horse, as it were, without
giving an opportunity to file objections to the draft sale deed, the order
impugned was passed. The sale deed itself has been executed in terms
C of the draft sale deed without objections being called for and considered.
Learned counsel for respondents points out that the case is taken up
now to consider the objections by the court. The only course which is
available to us is to direct the objections of the appellant to the draft sale
deed to be considered. It is, however, pointed out by Mr. Tarun Gupta,
D learned counsel for the appellant, that the copy of the draft sale deed
has not yet been served on the appellant.
16. In such circumstances, we are inclined to pass the following
order:
The appeal is allowed. We set aside the impugned order. We
E direct that the execution court Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhajjar shall
hand over the copy of the draft sale deed produced by the respondents
within a period of two weeks from the date of production of copy of this
judgment before the execution court. The appellant will be free to file
his objections to the draft sale deed within a period of three weeks
F thereafter. Thereafter, after hearing the parties, a decision will be taken
on the objections. Learned counsel for the appellant would point out
that appellant will in case the sale deed is found to fall foul of the decree,
bear the expenses which has been incurred by the respondents towards
registration. If the sale deed is found to not be in conformity with the
decree, fresh proceedings will be taken. Appropriate order will be passed
G by the court so that the decree is executed as is provided in the decree.
Needless to say, in case the sale deed which has been executed on the
strength of the draft sale deed is found to be violative of the decree, it
will necessarily be set aside, and thereafter, a fresh sale deed must be

H
RAJBIR v. SURAJ BHAN & ANR. 945
[K. M. JOSEPH, J.]

executed by the execution court. The entire process shall be completed A
within four months from the date copy of the judgment is produced before
the court.
Further proceedings based on the sale deed dated 11.06.2019 shall
be kept in abeyance till a decision is taken by the Court.
The appeal is allowed as above. B

The parties will bear their respective costs.

Nidhi Jain and Anurag Bhaskar Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Vrinda Singh, LCRA)
C

D

E

F

G

H