IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the execution court has a duty to construe the decree and ascertain its true effect by looking into the pleadings, relief sought, and judgment for the purpose of its execution. Additionally, the decree must be self-contained and capable of execution.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Additional Munsiff Court, Kollam (for short, 'the execution court') dismissing an execution petition on the ground that the decree is inexecutable.

2. The revision petitioner is the decree-holder, and the respondents are the judgment debtors in E.P.No.15/2017 in O.S.No.853/2011 on the file of the execution court. The suit was one for declaration of title, possession and permanent prohibitory injunction. The defendants were set ex-parte and the suit was decreed as prayed for by judgment dated 11/03/2014. The revision petitioner filed an execution petition before the execution court as E.P.No.15/2017, wherein, among other reliefs, he prayed to carry out the construction of the compound wall or fencing to decree B schedule property as per Ext.C1(b) plan at the expense of the decree-holder through the process of court by deputing the Amin and appointing a Commission. The execution court dismissed the execution petition as not executable. It is challenging the said order; the decree-holder has filed this revision petition.

3. I have heard Sri. Harish Gopinath, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. There is no appearance for the respondents.

4. The execution court dismissed the execution petition mainly on the following grounds:

(i) The decree does not specify the portion of the property through which the compound wall has to be put up. Without specifying the same, the compound wall cannot be directed to be put up.

(ii) Ext.C1(b) plan has not been appended to the decree, and the decree does not show that Ext.C1(b) is accepted by the court.

(iii) Amin reported that the decree is ambiguous, and the order cannot be executed.

5. Order 20 Rule 6 of CPC deals with the contents of the decree. The said Rule, among other things, states that the decree shall specify clearly the relief granted or other determination of the suit. In the decree, the reliefs granted were not specifically stated. What is stated in the result portion of the decree is that “the suit is decreed with costs.” It is true that an execution court cannot go beyond the decree under execution. But that does not mean that it has no duty to find out the true effect of that decree. For construing a decree, it can, and, in appropriate cases, it ought to take into consideration the pleadings as well as the proceedings leading up to the decree. The executing court would certainly be entitled to look into the averments and relief prayed in the plaint to construe the decree. [Bhavan Vaja and Ors. vs Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Mansang and Anr., AIR 1972 SC 1371 and Topanmal Chhotamal Vs. M/s. Kundomal Gangaram and Ors., AIR 1960 SC 388].

6. The reliefs prayed in the plaint are as follows:

“(a) To declare the title and possession of the decree-holder over decree C and E schedule properties.

(b) Restraining the judgment debtors from trespassing upon decree B schedule property of which decree C and E schedule properties form part, committing any act of waste therein, putting to use any portion of B schedule property as a way, taking vehicles through B schedule property, making any obstruction to the decree-holder in preserving decree B schedule property by constructing compound wall, fencing etc. and in peacefully enjoying the property, committing any mischief in B schedule property, disturbing the possession of the decree holder over B schedule property and doing any other act affecting the right of the decree holder over decree B schedule property by a perpetual injunction.

(c) Allowing the decree holder to recover a sum of Rs.50,000/- with future interest at the rate of 12 per cent annum from the date of plaint till the date of recovery from the judgment debtors personally and charged on all of their assets, both movable and immovable.”

Since the suit was decreed with costs, all the reliefs sought in the plaint are deemed to have been granted even though they were not specifically