1. By way of these two revision petitions, preferred under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, petitioners have challenged the impugned Orders dated 25.08.2022, passed in Civil Misc. Applications No.18/2022 & 17/2022 by the Court of Additional District Judge No.1, Bundi (Rajasthan), dismissing their two separate applications filed under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC. Since the points involved in both revision petitions are substantially similar and petitioners & respondents No.1 are same parties, therefore, with consent of counsel for both parties, both petitions have been heard together and would stand decided by this common Order. Respondent No.1-plaintiff-decree holder has put in appearance as caveator.

2. Heard learned counsel for both parties, perused the impugned orders and material placed before this Court.

3. The relevant facts for deciding these petitions, in nut shell, are that respondent No.1-plaintiff instituted two separate civil suits for specific performance of two agreements dated 30.8.1991 against other respondents No.2 & 3. Both agreements were executed solely in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff. In civil suit No.23/2000, plaintiff averred in para Nos. 2, 5 & 6 of the plaint that defendants agreed to sale their 2/3 share in agricultural lands of khasra No.63, at Village Ren, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi, to plaintiff and other 8 persons, however, agreement has been executed in name of plaintiff alone and later on, after payment of substantive amount against agreed sale consideration, in furtherance to the agreement to sale dated 30.8.1991, defendants delivered possession of 278 Bighas agricultural land to plaintiff on 31.1.1992 and since then plaintiff and other eight persons, named in schedule ‘B’ appended with plaint have been in continuous cultivatory possession. In the Schedule ‘B’, appended with plaint, names of nine persons including plaintiff- Raghuveer Singh and both petitioners Raj Kumar and Vinod Kumar are mentioned. It was averred that land was agreed to be purchased jointly by plaintiff and other eight persons. Plaintiff averred in the plaint that, in pursuance of agreement in question, sale deed(s) was/ were to be executed and registered in the name of plaintiff and other eight persons jointly or severally according to instructions of plaintiff and prayer was made in the plaint in the similar tune. This civil suit was decreed in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff vide judgment dated 16.1.2004 in the following terms:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

4. In Civil Suit No.22/2000, plaintiff averred that defendant No.1 through his power of attorney holder defendant No.2, agreed to sale his Khatedari land of 46 Bighas 19 Biswas at village Ren, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi to plaintiff and executed agreement dated 30.8.1991, after receiving part of sale consideration and later, on payment of substantive sale consideration, possession of land was delivered to plaintiff on 31.01.1992, which is in continuous possession of plaintiff. In this suit, there is no reference of persons other than plaintiff in whose favour sale deed was to be executed, however, in the Court statements of plaintiff Raghuveer Singh (Pw.1), recorded on 8.5.2001 plaintiff has stated in his cross-examination that plaintiff has agreed to purchase land in question through agreement Ex.1 for and on behalf of other ten persons and while disclosing the name of these persons, both petitioners Raj Kumar Atri and Vinod Kumar Atri were named by plaintiff. Plaintiff also stated that plaintiff purchased land for such persons and from their money, on their behalf. This civil suit has been decreed in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff vide judgment dated 19.1.2004 in the following terms:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

5. It has transpired that respondents-defendants, challenged both judgments and decree for specific performance, by way of filing two separate civil regular first appeals No.254/2004 and 258/2004. During course of first appeals, an agreement dated 25.6.2012 was entered into between the parties to appeals and in respect of both civil suits No.22/2000 and 23/2000, and first appeals were dismissed as withdrawn on 22.8.2012, in view of the compromise. Copy of agreement dated 25.6.2012 has been placed on record by the respondent No.1 and whereupon, it has been contended that petitioner No.2 Vinod Kumar Atri also made his signature as witness, acknowledging the agreement. It may be noticed that petitioners have not given any reference of this agreement dated 25.06.2012 in their revision petitions nor in their applications under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC filed before the Executing Court.

6. It has been averred by petitioners that respondent No.1- plaintiff proceeded for execution of judgments and decree for specific performance dated 16.1.2004 and 19.1.2004 and submitted applications under Order 21 Rule 34 CPC to get execution of the sale deeds but plaintiff, with dishonest intention and to betray petitioners, prayed in civil suit No.22/2000 to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff Raghuveer Singh and his wife Smt. Saroj Kumari and in civil suit No.23/2000 prayed to execute sale deeds jointly in favour of plaintiff Raghuveer Singh, his daughter Annapurna Sharma, Son Birendra Vikram and wife Smt. Saroj Kumari. Plaintiff did not disclose name of both the petitioners and other persons to get sale deed registered in their favour, for whom he has averred and admitted in the plaint as well as in his evidence to purchase lands in question from their money. Name of plaintiff’s wife, son and daughter are not included in Schedule ‘B’ appended with the suit No.23/2000 nor included in names of persons stated by plaintiff in his statements in suit No.22/2000. Thus, both sale deeds, executed in favour of persons, other than named in Schedule ‘B’, and excluding petitioners are void.

7. It has been stated that though notices of execution petitions were issued to respondents-judgment debtors but despite service of notices they never appeared. Thereafter, respondent No.1- plaintiff has submitted draft sale deeds before the Executing Court and the Executing Court has permitted the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration in the Court in terms of the decree and after approval of the draft of sale deeds submitted by plaintiff has ordered to execute and register the sale deed, through Court by and on behalf of respondents-judgment debtors. Accordingly, sale deed dated 17.2.2021 has been executed and registered in execution of decree dated 16.1.2004 passed in civil suit No.23/2000 by the Executing Court, jointly in favour of respondent No.1 plaintiff- Raghuveer Singh, his wife Saroj Kumari, Son Birendra Vikram and daughter Annapurna Sharma, and sale deed dated 1.3.2021 has been executed and registered in execution of the decree dated 19.1.2004 passed in civil suit No.22/2000 by the Executing Court, jointly in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff Raghuveer Singh and his wife Smt. Saroj Kumari. The copy of both registered sale deeds have been placed on record. The possession of land in question had already been obtained as alleged by plaintiff, even before filing of suits and therefore, after execution and registration of sale deeds, the execution petitions were finally disposed of on 11.9.2021 in full satisfaction of judgments and decree.

8. Thereafter, both petitioners moved two separate applications in both execution petitions on 4.2.2022 invoking provisions of Section 151 CPC and Order 21 Rule 90 CPC. In both applications, petitioners have stated that respondent No.1-plaintiff Raghuveer Singh is elder brother of petitioner No.1 Raj Kumar Atri and is uncle of petitioner No.2 Vinod Kumar Atri and since he was the eldest member of family, therefore, both suits for specific performance were filed by plaintiff for and on behalf of petitioners. It has been stated that part of sale consideration was paid by petitioners, and petitioners also have the possession over part of lands in question as admitted by the plaintiff also in plaint and in his evidence. It has been further stated that but the plaintiff has committed fraud with the petitioners as also with the Court and instead of getting execution of sale deeds in favour of persons named in Schedule ‘B’ and named by plaintiff in his statements, he got executed and registered sale deeds in his own favour along with his wife, son and daughter, whose name were not included in the list of other eight persons. It has been stated that by excluding petitioners, while getting sale deeds registered in execution proceedings, the plaintiff has betrayed petitioners. It has been stated that the execution of both sale deeds is not according to terms of judgments and decree and the respondent No.1-plaintiff got executed both registered sale deeds by playing fraud with the Court as well as with petitioners, therefore, both sale deeds be treated as void and by recalling the same, sale deeds be ordered to be executed and registered according to terms of judgments and decree. For ready reference, the prayer made by petitioners in their application under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC is being reproduced hereunder:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

9. Respondent No.1-plaintiff filed reply to both applications filed by petitioners under Section 151 and Order 21 Rule 90 and contested.

10. Learned Executing Court, vide two separate orders passed on 25.8.2022, has dismissed both applications, hence, thereagainst both these revision petitions have been preferred by petitioners.

11. Learned counsel for petitioners, Mr. Abhinav Sharma, has vehemently argued following points:

(i) Respondent No.1-plaintiff was bound to get execute and register the sale deeds in execution of judgments and decree for specific performance, in favour of persons including plaintiff and petitioners who were named in the Schedule ‘B’ appended with the suit No.23/2000 as named by plaintiff in his statements in civil suit No.22/2000. However, plaintiff has got executed both sale deeds, excluding petitioners, only in favour of the plaintiff himself along with his wife, son and daughter. Once, plaintiff himself admitted in plaint and his evidence that part of sale consideration to purchase land in question was received from petitioners and other persons and then same was paid to the vendors defendants and he also admitted to enter into agreements to purchase these land for himself and eight other persons, of which names were mentioned and disclosed in Schedule ‘B’ of civil suit No.23/2000 and in statements of PW.1 plaintiff in civil suit No.22/2000 that after obtaining possession of land in question, plaintiff and other persons have been in continuous possession of land in question, but, while getting execution of sale deeds by respondent No.1 plaintiff decree holder, the name of petitioners have been excluded, and therefore, execution of such both sale deeds is not only contrary to terms of the decree but also a fraud with petitioners as also with the court.

(ii) Executing Court cannot go beyond terms of decree but in the present case, sale deeds in question have been executed by the Executing court, beyond the terms of decree, hence, both sale deeds are void.

(iii) Procedure envisaged under Order 21 Rule 34 CPC in respect of decree for execution of document is mandatory but same has not been adhered to by the Executing Court and therefore, execution of both sale deeds stands illegal as such both sale deeds be treated as void.

(iv) Respondent No.1-plaintiff has got executed both sale deeds with dishonest intention by playing fraud with the Court as well as with petitioners.

12. In support of aforesaid contentions, counsel for petitioners has placed reliance upon following judgments passed in cases of:

Rajbir Vs. Suraj Bhan [(2022) 5 SCALE 321];

V. Ramaswami Aiyengar Vs. T.N.V. Kailasa Thevar [AIR 1951 SC 189];

State of M.P. Vs. Mangilal Sharma [1998 AIR SCW 446];

Rajasthan Financial Corporation Vs. M/s Man Industrial Corporation Ltd. [AIR 2003 SC 4273] and

Brij Mohan Das Vs. Mt. Piari [AIR 1937 ALLAHABAD 567].

13. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sharma, appearing for respondent No.1-plaintiff decree holder countered arguments of counsel for petitioners and have urged following points before this Court:

(i) Application under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC is not maintainable as it is not a case where any property has been sold by way of auction, in execution proceedings, to realize fruits of the decree and Rule 90 of Order 21 deals with cases of setting aside auction sale on ground of material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting such sale. Further invocation of powers of court under Section 151 CPC is also not permissible in facts and circumstances of the present case, as alleged by petitioners.

(ii) Both agreements dated 30.8.1991, through which respondent No.1-plaintiff agreed to purchase land in question were admittedly executed in the name of plaintiff Raghuveer Singh alone, and he has paid entire sale consideration to vendors, therefore, any contention of plaintiff in the plaint and his statements before the trial court, that land in question was purchased by plaintiff, for and on behalf of other eight persons, is against the law and hit by the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

(iii) After execution of both agreements dated 30.8.1991 on the basis of which both civil suits for specific performance were decreed solely in favour of plaintiff, when respondents-judgment debtors preferred first appeal thereagainst, a fresh agreement dated 25.6.2012 was executed between the parties and in that agreement, petitioner No.2 Vinod Kumar Atri also made his signature as witness. Thus, subsequent to agreements dated 30.8.1991, a novation of agreements has arrived at, which is well within the knowledge of petitioners. Petitioners have concealed this agreement from this Court as also while moving applications under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC and Section 151 CPC before the Executing Court, therefore, objections raised by petitioners are neither bona fide and fair nor in the light of such subsequent facts. Therefore, execution of sale deeds, got executed by plaintiff in his favour along with his wife, son and daughter cannot be held to be beyond the terms of decree.

(iv) Petitioners have no locus standi to raise objection in respect of Order 21 Rule 34 CPC as, the provision is for the benefit of judgment debtor(s). Further there is no breach of procedure as well. In the present case, notice of execution petitions were issued to judgment debtors but despite service of notices when judgment debtors did not turn up to accept the remaining sale consideration and to execute and register sale deeds in compliance of decree, therefore, the Executing Court proceeded to direct the plaintiff to deposit remaining sale consideration in the Court and to execute and register the sale deeds on behalf of the judgment debtors, therefore, there is no violation of procedure as envisaged under Order 21 Rule 34 CPC, while permitting execution of both sale deeds, by the court for and on behalf of judgment debtors.

(v) Learned counsel has also pointed out that objections filed by petitioners invoking provisions of Section 151 CPC and Order 21 Rule 90 may not be treated as objections under Section 47 CPC. The petitioners were neither party in the suit proceedings nor in the original agreements dated 30.08.1991, and therefore, they are not entitled to invoke jurisdiction of Court, under Section 47 CPC as well against the judgments and decree, more particularly, after execution petitions have been decided and disposed of finally in full satisfaction of judgments and decree. He has pointed out that the Executing Court, while dismissing their applications vide impugned order dated 25.8.2022 has already observed that petitioners, at the most may institute a fresh civil suit for their grievances, if any.

14. Heard. Considered.

15. At the outset, this Court has noticed from the record that the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of the executing court Under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for seeking declaration of two registered sale deeds dated 17.02.2021 and 01.03.2021 as null and void.

16. Both these sale deeds have not been executed by the executing court, in the process of any sale of the immovable property by way of auction in order to realize fruits of any decree of the civil court, rather these sale deeds have been executed and registered by the executing court, during course of execution proceedings of the decree for specific performance, by and on behalf of the judgment debtors and in favour of plaintiff-decree holder along with the name of other persons as suggested by the decree holder. As per record, it stands clear that Respondent No.1–plaintiff had instituted two separate civil suits for specific performance, only for the purpose of execution of sale deeds as plaintiff claimed to have already obtained possession of suit land prior to filing of suits, in furtherance to the two agreements for sale dated 30.08.1991. One civil suit No. 23/2000 was instituted on 22.08.1994 and which was decreed vide judgment dated 16.01.2004, and another civil suit no. 22/2000 was instituted on 19.12.1992, which was decreed vide judgment dated 19.01.2004. The defendants, judgment debtors who are respondents No.2 and 3 herein (now represented through their legal representatives), challenged both decrees dated 16.01.2004 and 19.01.2004 by way of filing two separate first appeals. It appears that during course of first appeals, parties entered into compromise and accordingly both first appeals were dismissed as withdrawn on 22.08.2012. Thereafter respondent No.1–plaintiff– decree holder filed two separate execution petitions. Notices of execution petitions were issued to judgment debtors, but despite service of notices, when they did not appear, the executing court permitted the plaintiff-decree holder to deposit remaining sale consideration along with charges of registry in the court, as also to submit the draft sale deed to be executed. The executing court, due to nonappearance of the judgment debtors, considered the draft deeds itself and passed order of approval of the draft of sale deeds and then passed orders to execute and register sale deeds through court for and on behalf of judgment debtors in favour of plaintiff decree holder Raghuveer singh and his wife Smt. Saroj kumari and his son Birendra Vikram, and his daughter it means in the name of persons suggested by the decree holder.

17. Sale deed dated 17.02.2021 has been executed and registered in pursuance to the decree for specific performance dated 16.01.2004 passed in civil suit No.23/2000 in the execution petition No.86/2019 jointly in favour of plaintiff Raghuveer Singh, his wife, son & daughter where against civil revision petition No.202/2022 has arisen.

18. Sale deed dated 01.03.2021 has been registered in pursuance to the decree for specific performance dated 19.01.2004 passed in civil suit No.22/2000 in execution petition No.7/2013 jointly in favour of plaintiff-Raghuveer singh and his wife Smt. Saroj Kumari, where against revision petition No.203/2022 has arisen.

19. Therefore, one thing is admitted and clear that both sale deeds in question have not been executed by the executing court in pursuance of any auction sale of the immovable property during the course of execution proceedings to realize fruits of any decree. Provision of Order 21 Rule 90 CPC deals with cases for setting aside the auction sale on the ground of material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting such sale, when made under the orders of Executing Court for the purpose of realizing the fruits of decree. Execution of sale deeds, in furtherance to the decree for specific performance, by the executing court just for and on behalf of judgment debtors, in favour of decree holder may not be confused with the sale deed, executed by the court pursuant to the orders of executing court in order to realize fruits of decree. In order to clarify the situation more specifically, Order 21 Rule 90 CPC itself may be considered:

“Order XXI:

90. Application to set aside sale on ground of irregularity or fraud.-

1) Where any immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree, the decree-holder, or the purchaser, or any other person entitled to share in a reteable distribution of assets, or whose interests are affected by the sale, may apply to the Court to set aside the sale on the ground of a material irregulartiy or fraud in publishing or conducting it.

2) No sale shall be set aside on the ground of irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it unless, upon the facts proved, the Court is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or fraud.

3) No application to set aside a sale under this rule shall be entertained upon any ground which the applicant could have taken on or before the date on which the proclamation of sale was drawn up.

Explanation- The mere absence of, or defect in, attachment of the property sold shall not be, by itself, be a ground for setting aside a sale under this rule.”

20. Therefore, it can safely be observed that challenge to registered sale deeds dated 17.02.2021 & 01.03.2021, executed by the Executing Court in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiffdecree holder along with other persons named by decree holder, in the process of execution of the decree for specific performance, does not fall & covered within the scope of Order 21 Rule 90 CPC. Therefore, applications filed by petitioners invoking provisions of Order 21 Rule 90 CPC, virtually for the purpose of seeking declaration of both registered sale deeds of plaintiff decree holder as null & void are misconceived and misdirected.

21. In impugned orders, the learned Executing Court also observed that applications are not maintainable under Order 21 Rule 90 and Section 151 CPC, but the counsel for petitioners would argue that applications should not be dismissed merely on account of mentioning a wrong provision of law, but the substance of application be looked into, therefore, both applications were considered by the executing court on merits as well.

22. In the impugned order dated 25.08.2022, the Executing Court has clearly observed that as far as decree dated 19.01.2004, passed in civil suit No.22/2000 title Raghuveer singh Vs. Jethmal is concern, there is no Schedule ‘B’ appended, and petitioners have no case to contend that sale deeds have been executed contrary to terms of the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2004. As far as decree dated 16.01.2004, passed in civil suit No.23/2000 titled Raghuveer singh Vs. Bhanwar lal Mundra and Nagarmal is concerned, where Schedule ‘B’ is appended with the plaint and decree was passed in favour of the respondent No.1-plaintiff to get execute sale deeds jointly or separately as per Schedule ‘B’ according to instructions of plaintiff, it is not clarified nor there are any details and specifications as to in what manner, ratio and portion, sale deeds of the land in question were to be executed in favour of persons named in Schedule ‘B’ and executing court noticed that there are no details of assets to show that how much amount was contributed by persons, named in Schedule ‘B’. Petitioners too have not been able to give any details in this respect, in their applications filed Under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC.

The Executing Court has noticed that petitioners were admittedly not party in suits and further directions in the decree dated 16.01.2004 to execute the sale deed jointly or severally in favour of persons named in Schedule ‘B’ are directory in nature, at the choice of plaintiff decree holder. Therefore, with such findings the Executing Court has found that petitioners, may avail the remedy by way of filing fresh civil suits for their grievances as raised in applications and both applications have been dismissed with such liberty to petitioners.

23. Before this Court also, during the course of arguments, counsel for petitioners in a humble voice has contended that if provisions of Order 21 Rule 90 and Section 151 CPC are not applicable to the present case of petitioners, their applications may be treated within appropriate provisions of law. But, no specific provision, under which objections pointed out by petitioners through their application under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC can be considered, have been pointed out despite repeated askance by the court. On the contrary counsel for respondents has submitted that the applications of petitioners, neither can be considered under Order 21 Rule 90 nor are amenable within scope of Section 47 CPC.

24. This Court has looked into the provision of Section 47 CPC as well which provides a procedure to determine all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which decree was passed or their representatives and which are related to execution, discharge or specification of the decree, by the Executing Court and not by a separate suit. Undisputedly, both petitioners are neither party in the agreements dated 30.08.1991 nor in the suit proceedings. Petitioners could not clarify as to under which status, they are entitle to file objections under Section 47 CPC. The case of petitioners as alleged in their applications is that respondent No.1–plaintiff Raghuveer Singh was the senior most member of the family and both civil suits were filed by him, for and on behalf of petitioners, and after procuring the decree of specific performance, respondent No.1-plaintiff has betrayed and played fraud with petitioners by excluding names of petitioners, while getting sale deeds executed and registered in the execution proceedings of the decree. But, petitioners have nowhere explained their role/active participation during the period even after passing the decree dated 16.01.2004 and 19.01.2004 until execution of two sale deeds dated 17.02.2021 & 01.03.2021. It has not been disputed that against both the decree, two first appeals were preferred by defendants-judgment debtors but both first appeals were dismissed as withdrawn on 22.08.2012 according to the compromise. Counsel for respondent has placed on record an agreement dated 25.06.2012, whereunder parties entered into compromise at the stage of first appeals and according to which both first appeals were withdrawn. On this agreement, it has been alleged that petitioner No.2-Vinod Kumar, put his signature as witness. Petitioners, while have not disputed and denied the fact of dismissing first appeals according to compromise, but nowhere have whispered about the execution of the agreement dated 25.06.2012. Be that as it may at this stage, while considering the nature of objection by petitioners to challenge two sale deeds, this Court is not entering into such controversy in respect of waving their right, whatsoever after signing the agreement dated 25.06.2012. It is suffice to observe that all such issues and disputed questions of facts inter see between plaintiff and petitioners, are at the most, may be the subject matter of a civil suit, for which the executing court has already granted liberty to petitioners. Notwithstanding, if petitioners allege themselves to be representative of the plaintiffdecree holder and want to get determine such issues from the Executing Court only, instead of filing a civil suit, they are at liberty to choose the proper remedy in law either by way of filing objections Under Section 47 CPC or by way of filing civil suit. As far as objections filed by petitioners by way of present applications are concern, they are not liable to be considered within the scope of Section 47 CPC because of not showing locus standi and lack of pleadings. Therefore, petitioners are at liberty to get decide their grievances, whatsoever, by way of filing appropriate proceedings, by invoking jurisdiction of Court under proper provisions of law, so that the opposite party may get opportunity and Court may be able to deal with cases of petitioners accordingly.

25. Learned Counsel for petitioners has tried to persuade this Court that the Executing Court has breached the mandatory procedure of Order 21 Rule 34 CPC, while proceeding to execute sale deeds in question. Attention of this Court has been invited to order-sheets and proceedings of the execution petitions to contend that draft sale deeds were not served on the judgment debtors together with a notice requiring objections, if any to be made by the judgment debtors. On perusal of relevant order sheets of execution proceedings placed on record, it appears that notices of execution petitions were issued to the judgment debtors, who despite service of notices did not appear before the Executing Court. Thereafter the Executing Court has permitted the plaintiff decree holder to deposit remaining sale amount in the court as already observed in the decree and permitted the plaintiff decree holder, to submit draft sale deeds. Since in absence of judgment debtors, no objections from their side against draft sale deeds submitted by decree holder were raised, the Executing Court itself approved the draft sale deeds, and proceeded to execute & register sale deeds, for and on behalf of the judgment debtors, in favour of the plaintiff decree holder along with the persons whose names were suggested by the plaintiff-decree holder. This Court does not find any breach of provisions of Rule 34 of Order 21 CPC, in given facts and circumstances of the case and further, petitioners have not been able to show their locus standi to raise such objections, as petitioners neither have status of the decree-holder nor of the judgment debtor. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajbir (supra) relied upon by counsel for petitioners does not render any help and support to petitioners.

26. Now dealing with objection of petitioners that Executing Court has traveled beyond terms of the decree, while executing sale deeds in question, it is true that there can be no dispute to the proposition that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree, but here in present case, after passing the impugned decree dated 16.01.2004, same was assailed by way of first appeal and the first appeal was dismissed as withdrawn according to the compromise. This Court is not convinced that unless & until some rights are not conferred upon the petitioners, under which capacity and under what kind of rights, they are authorized to contend that the Executing Court has traveled beyond terms of the decree, while executing the sale deeds in question.

27. Petitioners have nowhere disclosed terms of the compromise. Though counsel for respondent No.1 has referred and relied upon the agreement dated 25.06.2012 whereunder parties entered into compromise in respect of lands in question of both civil suits and prima facie it appears that one of petitioner, also put his signatures on this agreement, in view of such subsequent facts and keeping in mind the status of petitioners who were neither party in the original agreements dated 30.08.1991 nor were party in civil suits nor explain their role and participation after passing judgments & decree dated 16.01.2004 & 19.01.2004, until and before filing of these two applications under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC dated 04.02.2000, before the Executing Court, this Court is not convinced with the argument of petitioners and do not agree that any of sale deed in question has been executed and registered by the Executing Court in breach of and in violation to terms of the decree. Therefore, in such facts & circumstances of the present cases, the judgments cited by counsel for petitioners in cases of V.Ramaswami Aiyengar (Supra), Mangilal Sharma (Supra), Rajasthan Financial Corporation (Supra) & Brij Mohan Das (Supra) in support of such principle of law that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree, do not render any help/support to the cases of petitioners.

28. The upshot of discussion made hereinabove, is that both revision petitions are not liable to succeed. In the result both petitions are hereby dismissed with the observations/liberty recorded hereinabove. No costs.

29. All other pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.