The executing Court has the power to interpret the decree passed in the previous suit, but it cannot make a new decree for the parties under the guise of interpretation and it cannot correct the decree passed by the trial court on the ground that it was passed on a misconception of fact.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Third Court, Alipore, in Title Appeal No. 1247 of 1963 affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif, First Court, Barasat, in Title Suit No. 2 of 1959. The plaintiff is the appellant in the instant appeal and the said suit was instituted for a declaration that the order passed in connection with Title Execution Case No. 76 of 1958 of the said First Court of Munsif at Barasat and the kobala executed in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 in the said execution case were null and void and without consideration. It appears that initially a suit being Title Suit No. 112 of 1952 was instituted and the parties to the instant suit were also parties in the suit. The said suit was disposed of on the following order;"that the suit be decreed on contest against defendants 1 and 2 with costs and ex parte against the rest. Defendant No. 1 shall execute a saf kobala in respect of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiffs on receiving Rs. 3,000 from them and get it registered within one month from this date. In default a kobala in respect of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiffs will be executed and registered through Court on plaintiff's depositing Rs. 3,000/- in court. "it appears that the said judgment was affirmed up to this Court. It further appears that the decree-holders put the said decree in execution and in the said execution proceeding the executing Court executed a saf kobala (deed of sale) in favour of defendant No. 1 and the said kobala was also registered in terms of the decree. Defendant No. 1 in the said suit thereafter filed the instant Title Suit being Title Suit No. 2 of 1959 inter alia contending that the proceeding in Title Execution Case No. 76 of 1958 and the orders passed thereunder and also the kobala executed in favour of the decree-holder, plaintiff, were null and void and without consideration. The plaintiff in the instant suit, (defendant No. 1, in the earlier suit), contended that a saf kobala was to be executed by the executing Court on the plaintiff's depositing Rs. 3,000/- in Court. But the plaintiff in the said suit had not deposited the said sum of Rs. 3,000/- and as such the decree was not executable and consequently the orders passed by the executing Court and execution of the said saf kobala and registration thereof through the intervention of the executing Court were illegal and null and void. The trial Court came to the finding that the orders passed in the relevant execution proceeding and the kobala executed in favour of the defendants through Court were all perfect and legal and there was no cause of action for instituting the instant suit. In that view of the matter the instant suit was dismissed by the trial court and the plaintiff appellant preferred the said Title Appeal No. 1247 of 1963. The Court of Appeal below held that the executing Court had the competence to interpret the judgment and decree passed in the said previous suit and as Rs. 3,000/- had already been in deposit in the trial court which passed the decree it must be held that the decree-holder complied with the condition of depositing Rs. 3,000/- and was thus entitled to Ret the decree executed and the kobala executed and registered by the Court. The Court of Appeal below upon consideration of the ordering portion of the judgment passed in the said previous suit which has been set out hereinbefore came to the finding that the "language as used therein as quoted earlier, runs to the effect that the kobala will be executed and registered through the court on plaintiff's depositing Rs. 3,000/- in court. This can easily be interpreted that unless Rs. 3,000/- be deposited, no kobala in favour of the plaintiff would be executed and registered through the court. It does not, therefore, exclude the deposit which was already made prior to the passing of the order. " the Appeal Court was also of the view that