2017 Supreme(Pat) 1506
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.
Deo Nandan Singh and Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
Devi Nandan Singh and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Revision No. 112 of 2013
Decided On : 13-12-2017
For the Appellant : Roy Shivajee Nath, Sr. Adv., Salahuddin Khan, Rambali Jha, Sunil Kumar Sinha and Parmad Kr. Advs.
For the Respondent: Jitendra Kishore Verma and Mrigendra Kumar, Advs.
The execution court cannot go beyond the decree and has to follow the directions given in the decree.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) - Order 21 Rule 23, Order 21 Rule 35 - The execution court cannot go beyond the decree and has to follow the directions given in the decree. The execution court cannot entertain objections that have already been rejected and the execution has been directed to proceed.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners filed Execution Case No. 08 of 2009 for execution of decree passed in Title Suit No. 78 of 1993/16 of 1994. The execution case was dismissed on the ground that the decree holders failed to mention the date of their dispossession. The decree holders filed a revision petition challenging the dismissal of the execution case.
Finding of the Court:
The court examined the decree passed in Title Suit No. 78 of 1993/16 of 1994 and the subsequent orders and observations made by the court in related proceedings. The court held that the decree should be treated as one for confirmation of possession only, and not for recovery of possession. The court also held that the execution court cannot go beyond the decree and has to follow the directions given in the decree. The court further held that the execution court erred in entertaining objections raised by the judgment debtors/opposite parties after the objections were already rejected and the execution was directed to proceed. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the execution court to proceed with the execution case.
Ratio Decidendi: The decree passed in Title Suit No. 78 of 1993/16 of 1994 should be treated as a decree for confirmation of possession only. The execution court cannot go beyond the decree and has to follow the directions given in the decree. The execution court cannot entertain objections that have already been rejected and the execution has been directed to proceed.
Result: The revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the execution court is directed to proceed with the execution case.
Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Petitioners are decree holders and they filed Execution Case No. 08 of 2009 for execution of decree passed in Title Suit No. 78 of 1993/16 of 1994 but the aforesaid execution case was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge-1, Aurangabad passing impugned order dated 29.05.2013 on the ground that decree holders/petitioners failed to mention the date of their dispossession and in absence of above stated pleading, the decree for recovery of possession could not be executed.
2. Shorn to unnecessary details suffice it to say that decree holders/petitioners filed Title Suit No. 78 of 1993/16 of 1994 against the judgment debtors/opposite parties for declaration of their right, title and confirmation of possession and also delivery of possession, if they are found dispossessed during pendency of the aforesaid suit. The above stated title suit was decreed on 21.12.1995 and the judgment debtors/opposite parties filed Title Appeal No. 02 of 1996/13 of 1998 which was dismissed on 05.04.2003 by the 1st appellate court. The judgment debtors/opposite parties preferred 2nd appeal bearing 2nd Appeal No. 130 of 2003 which was, too, dismissed on 01.05.2008.
3. It is pertinent to note here that judgment debtors/opposite parties preferred S.L.P. (civil) No. 16789 of 2009 before the Apex Court of this country and the said special leave petition was dismissed on 31.07.2009. It is also pertinent to note here that when the above stated Title Suit No. 78 of 1993/16 of 1994 was decreed and Title Appeal No. 02 of 1996/13 of 1998 was pending, the decree holders/petitioners filed Execution Case No. 01 of 1996 before the court of Sub Judge-1, Aurangabad but the learned Sub Judge-1, Aurangabad dismissed the aforesaid Execution Case No. 01 of 1996 passing order dated 31.01.1997 on the ground that decree passed in Title Suit No. 78 of 1993/16 of 1994 was vague and was not executable. The above stated order dated 31.01.1997 passed in Execution Case No. 01 of 1996 was challenged by the decree holders/petitioners before this court by filing Civil Revision No. 537 of 1997 which was dismissed by this court vide order dated 27.08.1997 and while dismissing the aforesaid Civil Revision No. 537 of 1997, this court observed in order dated 27.08.1997 that the decree passed in Title Suit No. 78 of 1993/16 of 1994 has to be read as one for confirmation of possession alone and the court further observed in the aforesaid order as follows:-
"In a declaratory suit for title it is almost customary for the plaintiff to seek confirmation of possession and in the alternative, seek recovery of possession if he is found to have been dispossessed. In case of dispossession he has to establish the fact and the court is supposed to record a finding and pass a decree. If the plaintiffs in the present case claimed reliefs in that form but did not lead evidence nor the court recorded any such finding, it would be wrong to expect that the executing court would deliver possession of the property in purported execution of the decree. In these premises, the court below did not commit any error in rejecting the prayer for delivery of possession."
4. After disposal of S.L.P. (civil) No. 16789 of 2009, the decree holders/petitioners again filed Execution Case No. 08 of 2009 and in the aforesaid execution case, the judgment debtors/opposite parties filed objection raising this point that the decree passed in Title Suit No. 78 of 1993/16 of 1994 was barred by law of limitation and was not liable to be executed and also raised this point that order passed in Civil Revision No. 537 of 1997 has been concealed by the decree holders/petitioners and furthermore, they raised objection that the decree passed in Title Suit No. 78 of 1993/16 of 1994 does not contain relief of recovery of possession as observed by this court in Civil Revision No. 537 of 1997 and, therefore, the Execution Case No. 08 of 2009 was not maintainable. The court below having heard the parties on execut