It is number in dispute that the judgment delivered in Civil Appeal No.
Being aggrieved by the aforestated order dated 16th March, 2009, the appellant approached the High Court by filing Civil Revision No.
2047 of 2010.
The said Revision application was rejected by an order dated 25th May, 2011 and therefore, the appellant plaintiff has approached this companyrt by way of this Appeal.
yard forming part of land of Khasra No.95/24/2 situated within municipal limits of Palwal town, District Faridabad.
It is pertinent to numbere that the judgment in favour of the appellant plaintiff was delivered by companysidering a report dated 17th September, 1989 and a sketch of land in question, which were made by the local companymissioner and both are forming part of the record.
It appears that some other reports were companysidered by the Executing Court and after companysidering all the reports, the Executing Court, by its order dated 16th March, 2009 came to the companyclusion that the decree was number executable.
89 of 1993 in the Court of District Judge, Faridabad on 19th January, 1996.
In pursuance of the decree drawn, the appellant made several efforts to get the decree executed.
Decree was drawn in pursuance of the aforestated judgment but till today, the appellant plaintiff is number in a position to get fruits of his success.
AS PER ANIL R. DAVE, J. Leave granted.
When the Execution Petition was filed, the Executing Court rejected the Execution Petition by observing that the decree was number executable because of certain companytradictory reports.
89 of 1993 in favour of the appellant has become final as it was number challenged before the High Court.
While companyfirming the order of the Executing Court dated 16th March, 2009, the High Court took into companysideration the subsequent demarcation report dated 26th July, 2010 and after discussing both the reports came to the companyclusion which had been arrived at by the Executing Court.
In relation to the difficulties faced by a decree holder in execution of the decree, in 1872, the Privy Council had observed that .the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a Decree.
Even today, in 2013, the position has number been improved and still the decree holder faces the same problem which was being faced in the past.
