An executing court is limited to enforcing a decree as it stands; it cannot engage in fact-finding beyond the explicit terms of the decree, particularly in execution of vague prohibitory orders.

JUDGMENT :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. Both the aforesaid revision petitions, one filed by the decree-holder (S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 12/2023) and the other filed by the Objector-Judgment debtors (S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 273/2022), have arisen out of the common order dated 11.11.2022 passed by the District Judge, Dholpur, acting as the Executing Court (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Executing Court'), while deciding Applications No. 15/2021 and 16/2021 filed under Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. By the said order, the attachment of one machine was maintained, whereas the other machine was directed to be released from attachment. In view of the common origin and interrelated issues involved, both the revision petitions were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The aforesaid revision petitions were earlier decided by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.04.2025. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 21.04.2025, Decree Holders-M/s Anondita Healthcare & Another filed Civil Appeal Nos. 11733-11734 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 23254-23255 of 2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein vide order dated 03.09.2025, while setting aside order dated 21.04.2025, the Hon'ble Apex Court remitted the matter back to this Court for fresh consideration.

3. In the light of directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the above revision petitions were listed on priority basis and learned Senior Counsels appearing for the parties have been heard at length for fresh consideration by this court.

Brief facts:

4. For the purpose of convenience, facts stated in S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 12/2023 have been taken into consideration. The revision petition filed by the Decree-holders under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred as 'CPC') is directed against orders dated 11.11.2022 for releasing one machine from attachment during execution proceedings and order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the Executing Court, whereby Decree- holder’s application seeking permission to lead additional evidence was rejected.

5. It is stated that the Decree holder-Petitioner No.1 is a proprietorship concern engaged in the manufacture and supply of non-drug surgical items and Petitioner No.2 is its proprietor. The Decree holders claim to have developed and owned the design, technology and specifications of machines used for manufacturing surgical gloves around the year 2009. For fabrication, Abdul Rahman and his sons, Faiz Mohd. and Mohd. Imran, were engaged. One MOU dated 20.12.2013 was executed by the petitioners-decree holders with Mr. A.K. Salwan, then General Manager of the petitioner firm, to ensure confidentiality.

6. Fabrication was commenced and two machines were completed by November, 2015. Apprehending unauthorised use of the design of machines, the petitioners executed another agreement dated 18.10.2015 with Respondent No.1, Faiz Mohd, the fabricator. Despite confidentiality agreement and in violation of the agreement, the design of machine was shared by the Respondent no. 1 to Respondent No.3, Swear Healthcare and on the basis of such design in quite unauthorised manner, Respondent No. 1 fabricated machines for the Respondent No. 3.

7. Thereupon, petitioners/decree-holders instituted Civil Suit No.101/2016 before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Budh