The executing court has the power to construe a decree if there is ambiguity and can rely on documents, such as plans, for interpretation. It cannot go behind a decree but can interpret it if ambiguous.

S. Sankarasubban, J.

This revision petition is filed by the judgment debtor in O.S.211 of 1986. The revision if filed against the order in E.A. 8 of 1998 in E.P. 303 in E.P. 303 of 1990 in O.S.211 of 1986 on the file of the Munsiffs Court, Kasaragod. The plaintiffs instituted a suit against the defendant for two reliefs; one was for a mandatory injunction and the other was for a prohibitory injunction. There was a sketch attached to the plaint. The relief prayed for was with regard to the above sketch. According to the plaintiff, there was a road in which obstructions were created by the defendant by planting coconut trees at the points 'Al' and 'A2' and also by construing a fence V. The mandatory part of the injunction was to remove the obstructions to road 'R' at' Al' and ' A2' and also the fence 'Fand by filling up all the coconut plant pits. The prohibitory injunction was to restrain the defendant from obstructing road 'R' mentioned in the eye-sketch. The trial court passed the following decree, which was confirmed in the appeal and the second appeal:

"(a) That the defendant are hereby directed to remove the obstruction to the road VR' at Al and A2 and fence ^F' and to restore the road V R' mentioned in the plaint eye-sketch to its original condition by removing the coconut plants and by filling the coconut plant pits within one month, ie.,by30.11.89; (b) That if the defendant fails to do the work as directed, plaintiffs be at liberty to have the said work done through an officer of this Court at the expense of the defendant".

since the defendant did not comply with the mandatory directions, E.P. 303 of 1990 was filed. In that E.P. the plaintiffs-decree holders filed the present application, E. A. 8 of 1998. This application was necessitated because as per the E.P. when the Amin went to clear off the obstructions, he was not able to identify the property on the basis of the eye-sketch produced along with the plaint and the decree. Hence, the warrant was returned. The present E.A. was filed to direct the Amin to identify the property on the basis of Ext. C2 plan, which was marked on the trial side. This application was opposed by the present petitioner. The contention taken by the petitioner was that according to the decree this property is to be located on the basis of the eye-sketch. If the property cannot be identified on the basis of the eye-sketch, the proper remedy for the decree holders is to apply for an amendment of the decree substituting Ext. C2 plan in the place of the eye-sketch. The Court below after hearing both the parties rejected the objections raised by the judgment debtor. It directed the Amin to identify the property and remove the obstructions on the basis of Ext. C2 plan. It is against the above order that the present revision is filed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner sri. D. Krishna Prasad submitted that his client has no objection in executing the decree in its present form. According to him, the decree refers only the eye-sketch and if property is not identified as per the eye-sketch, then the decree becomes unexcitable. He further contended that even if it can be accepted that property can be identified on the basis of Ext. C2 plan, the Court below was not right in directing the Amin to remove the obstructions on the basis of Ext. C2 plan without he being satisfied as to the exact nature of the property.

3. sri. M.C. Sen, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is true that the decree mentions about the eye-sketch. But, the eye-sketch does not contain any measurements. In the suit itself a Commissioner was appointed to identify the road and the obstructions created to the road. These were identified on the basis of Ext. C2 plan. As a matter of fact, the eye-sketch mentioned in the decree has not been marked in the suit. He contended that the executing Court is well within its power to take the measurements on behalf of Ext. C2 plan in order to identify the road and t