P.K.Deb, J.

1. A short question has been involved in this revision petition regarding the executability of the decree by a judgment-debtor.

2. The opposite party (Bimla Deep) filed Matrimonial Suit No. 9 of 1993 before the 3rd Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur for the reliefs under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for restitution of conjugal rights with an alternative prayer for grant of maintenance and also custody of child etc. The husband Kanu Charan Deep appearing in the suit admitted the claim of the petitioner regarding restitution of the conjugal rights and on such admission, the suit was decreed and observations were made in the following manner:

"If it is not obeyed forthwith by the respondent, the applicant may move the Court regarding the custody of the child or the articles presented at or about the time of marriage or maintenance Under Secs. 26, 27 or 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act or any other law thought proper, apart from exercising her legal right to put the decree in execution as provided u/Order 21 Rule 32, CPC. In addition to this and without prejudice to any application that may be filed on disobedience of the decree to be passed in the suit on admission, for periodical or monthly maintenance, it is also ordered that in case the decree for restitution of conjugal rights is not obeyed by the respondent i.e., the husband within fifteen days from the date of this order, the respondent (J. Dr.) will make payment of monthly maintenance @ Rs. 1,000.00 (one thousand) per month with effect from the date of this order to the applicant-decree holder and the same shall be as those payable under a decree for the payment of money as provided u/ Order 21 Rule 33(4), CPC, subject to what has been stated above..."

3. It appears that after the decree there were no resumption of conjugal rights between the two spouses. Then the husband put the decree in execution for resumption of conjugal rights but that execution case being Execution Case No. 1 of 1994 was dismissed without admission by the impugned order dated 15.12.1994 by the 3rd Additional District Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur. The learned Court below dismissed the execution petition only on the ground that there is no provision under the Code of Civil Procedure wherein a judgment- debtor can seek execution of the decree. It appears that the learned Court below went on with a fixed notion that if a decree is passed against the party then he only becomes the decree-holder and the party against-whom the decree was passed remains as judgment-debtor.

4. The definition of "decree-holder" and the "judgment-debtor" remains on the same footing as per Secs. 2(iii) and 2(x) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Decree-holder is defined in the following manner:

"2(iii)-"Decree-holder means any person in whose favour a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been made."

Similarly judgment-debtor has been defined in the following manner :

"2 (x)-Judgment-debtor means any person against whom a decree has . been passed or an order capable of execution has been made."

5. There cannot be a leak proof straight jacket in all the cases regarding the decree in whose favour the same has been passed and against whom it has been passed. In a decree being passed, there can be some relief in favour of one of the parties and the same relief by way can be in favour of the adversaries. The same may be cleared by the following illustration :

"A filed a suit for partition against B, C and D regarding his 1/4th share in the suit property. All the defendants, namely B, C and D contested the suit and there was a prayer by the defendant C to the effect that if a decree is passed for partition, then his 1/4th share may also be separately allotted. The suit was decreed preliminarily in favour of the plaintiff A regarding his 1/4th share and there is also a direction to the effect that a separate allotment of being made in the final decre