IMPORTANT POINT
Executing Court cannot put an end to an execution case without ensuring compliance of order under execution.

M.K. Basu, President — This appeal arises out of an order passed in C.D.F. Unit-2 Misc. case No. 4 of 2002 dt. 25-3-2003 by the Calcutta Unit-2 District Forum. The said Misc. case arose out of an application dt. 10th September 2002 filed by Mulchand Burnwal (who is the Appellant before us) for an order for enforcement of the original order dt. 6th July 2000 passed by the same Forum in case No. 115/2000 as well as for enforcement of two other orders dt. 7th May 2001 and 17th July 2001 passed in the execution case No. 51 of 2000 of that Forum. The Forum in the said Misc. case 4 of 2002 came to the conclusion that since in the execution case No. 51 of 2000 which arose out of the main order passed in C.D.F. case No. 115 of 2000 had already been disposed of, it had nothing more to do in respect of the Misc. case No. 4 of 2002 which was practically another execution case for enforcing the same original order dt. 6-7-2000 passed in C.D.F. Unit-2 case No. 115 of 2000. The order that was passed by the executing Forum in the execution case No. 51 of 2000 on 17-7-2001 was to the effect that the matter, that is the execution case, was disposed of on contest without cost directing the O.P. — C.E.S.C. Ltd. to comply with the order of the Forum, “if there was no legal bar.” In the impugned order in Misc. case 4 of 2002 it appears to our minds that the Forum committed a mistake by taking the said order dt. 17-7-2001 as having finally disposed of the execution case No. 51 of 2000 mentioned above. An execution cannot be said to be disposed of by virtue of such an order. The executing court has to note in the final order of the execution case as to whether the execution case has been fully satisfied and then he has to pass an order to the effect that the execution case is disposed of on full satisfaction or if it falls short of full satisfaction of the Dbr. to take remedial reason or penal action action. Till then the execution case cannot be taken as having been disposed of. In the present case the Forum was in error in coming to the finding that the execution case No. 51 of 2000 was finally disposed of since it passed that order. But to our mind that order did not attain finality by giving a simple direction upon the judg-ment debtor to execute and enforce the main order out of which that execution case arose. The executing court ought to have fixed a date for compliance-report to be filed by the parties and after hearing them and being satisfied that the order had been complied with, it was to make a note of such fact of compliance and then it was to pass the final order disposing of the execution case on full satisfaction

or any other order as the case might require. Here what the executing court did was far from this settled position of law. It was in the half way that the execu-ting court put an end to the execution case erroneously.

2. Therefore, we are unable to accept as correct the finding of the Forum in Misc. case No. 4 of 2002 that the execution case No. 51 of 2000 had already been fully disposed of and its hands were tied and it could not pass any order on the petition filed by the decree holder who having not obtained the execution of the main order was helplessly running from post of piller.

3. Mr. Nayak’s argument that since the Misc. case, that is, execution case No. 51 of 2000 was no longer in existence and had already been disposed of and since thereafter two Misc. cases have been instituted by the same party one after another to give effect to the main order, the present appeal against such a Misc. case which is practically nonest is not legally maintainable does not impress us. We are to observe that the order dt. 17-7-2001 passed in execution case No. 51 of 2000 by the executing court was totally wrong. The executing court could not in such a manner put an end to an execution case without ensuring compliance of the order under execution. From that point of view the execution case No. 51 cannot be treated as having been