The executing court cannot modify a decree and must execute it as it is, even when the terms of the decree are ambiguous.

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

1. The decree holder's petition, for, a direction being pronounced, upon, the respondent/petitioner herein, to, through a registered of conveyance, alienate her ¼th share, borne in the suit property, bearing Khasra Nos. 532, 534, 536, 537, and, Kh. No. 538, total measuring 81-06 sq. meters, corresponding, to, new Khasra Nos. 1005, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, situated in Mohal Ranital, Nahan, District Sirmaur, stood, decreed by the learned trial Court, and, the apt decree rendered by the learned trial Court, has, uncontrovertedly acquired conclusivity.

2. The decree holder/respondent herein, proceeded to, hence put to execution, the, conclusive binding decree, recorded by the learned trial Court, by his casting there before, an, execution petition. The proposed sale deed for its, hence, being ordered, to be completely executed, and, registered before the Sub Registrar concerned, was tendered by the decree holders, before the learned executing Court. However, the learned executing Court, had, after paragraph No.1, of, the apt draft of the sale deed, ordered for incorporation therein, the, hereinafter extracted contested recitals:-

“the suit was decreed for selling ¼th share of the dwelling house detailed in Khasra Nos. 532, 534, 536, 537 and 538 which are now corresponding Khasra Nos. 1005, 1007, 1008, 1009 and 1010. The partition was entered between the parties and as per final decree shit land was partition and possession was give qua khasra Nos. 532, 5436, 537, 534/1, 534/2 and 534/3 to DH Ishwan Chand. Therefore, there was no need to purchase the same. Further more, the share which was in possession of the JD was agreed to sell by her to the extent of 1/4th share to the DH and share was to be taken from the are which was left with her. Thus, 1/4th share of area 1007/4 measuring 24.66 which is presently as Khasra Numbers 1696 is the land from which 1/4th share has to be given. This is in form of house. So entire house is to be given even if the area is less as DH had agreed that he is willing to accept 20.26 sq. meter instead of 24.66 sq. meters.”

The afore referred mandate, as pronounced, in, the impugned order, is, forcefully contended by the learned counsel appearing for the judgment debtor, to rather beget transgression, of, the mandate, of, the apt conclusive, binding judgment, and, decree, where-within, rather the hereinafter extracted echoings hence stand borne :-

“It is ordered that the petition is allowed and accordingly respondent is directed to sell her 1/4th share in the dwelling house in dispute comprising Khasra Nos. 532, 534, 536, 537 and 538, total measuring 81-06 sq. meters corresponding to new khasra Nos. 1005, 1007, 1008, 1009 and 1010, situated in Mohal Ranital, Nahan, District, Sirmour, H.P. to the petitioner at the market value prevalent in Nahan town now a days.”

Besides he contends, that, in making the aforesaid contested mandate, in, the impugned order, (a) the learned executing Court, has, infracted the solemn principle, as, anvilled upon the legal premise qua the executing court being barred to go behind the decree, rather it being enjoined, to, in its fullest letter, and, spirit, hence implement it or put it to coercive execution. In making the aforesaid espousal, the learned counsel appearing for the judgment debtor, places reliance, upon, a verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered on 3rd January, 2014, in a case titled as Shivshankar Gurgar versus Dilip, bearing Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2014, the relevant portion whereof, stands extracted hereinafter:-

“It is settled principle of law that the executing court cannot go beyond the decree. It has no jurisdiction to modify a decree. It must execute the decree as it is. This Court in Deepa Bhargava and Another v. Mahesh Bhargava and others, [(2009)2 SCC 294] held thus:-

“9. There is no doubt or dispute as regards interpretation or application of the said consent terms. It is also not in dispute that he respondent judgment-debtors di